BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.

[Ron]

.

The Bully's New Victim

Monsanto has declared war on another little guy. Monsanto is
a big bully, but I've got a secret that will bring them to
their knees.

Their timing was designed to create despair and suffering.
Their legal papers were filed on the Thursday before the long
July 4th holiday weekend. No time for attorneys to review the
complaint. A long Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for Althea,
Stanley, and William Bennett, third generation owners of
Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine.

Their timing is also unfortunate for Monsanto's stockholders.
As biotechnology is being debated around the world, as the
European Community considers easing rules regarding
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in American foods, as
George Bush blackmails African nations with loss of American
dollars in exchange for accepting GMOs, the last thing
Monsanto needs is a revelation of the manner of duplicity that
I will reveal in today's column.

The Bennett's crime was to market their milk with this label:

"Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones."

Source page

Monsanto has filed papers in federal court, arguing that milk
from cows treated with their genetically engineered bovine
growth hormone is no different from untreated milk.

That is a lie, of course, and Monsanto knows it.

I have evidence that Monsanto's own scientist (Margaret
Miller) confirmed the validity of an assay that can determine
the difference between genetically engineered milk and normal
milk. Scientist Margaret Miller left Monsanto in the middle of
the FDA approval process and went to work at FDA where she
analyzed her own research, which led to approval.

In approving Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth
hormone, the Food & Drug Administration determined that there
were no differences between "wholesome" milk and the new
genetically modified version. The FDA relieved Monsanto from
the obligation of developing a test for the new milk, stating
that there could be no test because the milks were identical.
Of course, this was a lie. Since Miller now worked for FDA,
she was aware of the lie. Since she once worked for Monsanto,
it is clear that the pharmaceutical giant knew of the lie,
too. How do I know this?

I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Miller's FDA
job application. On that document, she boasts of having
performed that very test. Talk about smoking guns! I also
interviewed the scientist who holds the patent for that test.
He confirmed Miller's complicity.

Monsanto hired ex-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who
stated that the two milks were indistinguishable. After
such confirmation from the esteemed Dr. Koop, who needed a
second opinion?

However, I have uncovered a previously unpublicized secret. I
am sharing this with you and Oakhurst Farm so that the truth
be known about genetically engineered milk. I am not a popular
person in this new America. The United States of
Monsanto-land. To the Monsanto government, I am a terrorist
for revealing this secret of state. If you doubt who runs
things, review this:

http://www.notmilk.com/pelican.html

The milks are different, Monsanto claims?

Cornell University dairy scientist, Vitaly Spitsberg, owns a
patent for a method to detect hormonal treatment in animals
(US Patent #5,635,401).

The unbelievable part of this patent confirms that Cornell
University was given grant money by the United States
Department of Agriculture in 1992, two years before Monsanto
received official approval for the use of recombinant bovine
somatotropin (rbST) in dairy cows (Grant #92-27206-779). Who
says Monsanto and the U.S. government are not one big happy
family? Monsanto's plays both sides of the political fence. I
have no information as to activities that occur behind closed
doors of the oval office, but President Clinton praised
Monsanto in his 1998 State of the Union Address.

Now to the evidence that will win the case for Oakhurst. The
same evidence that is a condemnation of genetic engineering
and biotechnology. Nature always finds a way to tame the
arrogance of man.

One feature of milk is that it is loaded with saturated fat.
These fat molecules are not entirely fat. They are actually
composed of many different layers. The thin outermost layer is
made of protein, and that is the key. While one would assume
that genetically engineered milk could be tested by measuring
the levels of bovine growth hormone or insulin- like growth
factor-I, the new patented test measures an unusual protein in
the membrane named "milk fat globule membrane" or MFGM.
Keeping this simple, the MFGM contains an unusual protein
named mammary derived growth inhibitor, which is a fatty
acid-binding protein (MDGI or FABP). The new patented method
measures the amounts of these new proteins so that an easy
test of milk can determine whether it has been genetically
engineered.

FDA's conclusion that the milk was identical is more than a
deception. It's more than a lie. It's a betrayal to the
American public. What I am revealing to you today just adds
more evidence that somebody knew the truth a few years before
final approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine
growth hormone.

I am helping Oakhurst Dairy because it is the right thing to
do. If not for Monsanto, I would be developing real
estate. Monsanto taught me about genetic engineering
and milk. I've learned that all milk contains powerful
growth hormones.

Oakhurst Dairy is careful not to represent that their milk is
hormone-free. It is not. If you drink cow's milk, genetically
engineered or otherwise, you will be ingesting powerful
steroid and protein growth hormones.

Permission is given for you to share this column with other
persons or groups. The truth about genetic engineering must be
known. The Internet remains our opportunity to level the
playing field. I have risked a lot by writing this column.
Please do your part in helping to get out the truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

Robert Cohen, author of: MILK A-Z (201-871-5871) Executive
Director (notmilkman@notmilk.com) Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com

--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of
these milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward
the URL or this entire file to them.

Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If
so, have them send an empty Email to
notmilk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and they will receive it
(automatically)!

[John The M]

>Subject: BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not
>Really. From: banmilk@hotmail.com (Ron) Date: 7/5/03 9:26 PM
>!!!First Boot!!!

>Their timing was designed to create despair and suffering.
>Their legal papers were filed on the Thursday before the long
>July 4th holiday weekend. No time for attorneys to review the
>complaint.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

The standard Lawyer response is to deny, deny, deny which
reads something like this.

Respondent denies petitioners point 1.

Respondent denies petitioners point 2.

Respondent denies petitioners point 3. And, so on.

They got word processor scripts that can crack out an adequate
reply within minutes.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)

[Mo0$H]

On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com (Ron) wrote:

>.
>
>
>The Bully's New Victim

<Snip chain letter whingeing about alleged corporate
misdemeanours>

If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and
vote for a regulator that will make them do so. QED.

[Hua Kul]

MO0$H <nill@nill.nill> wrote in message
news:<rd5fgvgc1692ke9i8c07s50i7ugjsgkm11@4ax.com>...
> On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com
> (Ron) wrote:
>
>
> If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and
> vote for a regulator that will make them do so.

Let me fill you in on what your omniscient regulators are
doing in the US. They are forbidding the Amish farmers in my
home state from selling their milk. The Amish don't practice
pasteurization. It doesn't matter if I want to drink their
milk anyway, I have to be protected from their *evil*
old-fashioned practice, which somehow was good enough for
thousands of years.

--Hua Kul

huaREMOVEkul@NOTMAIL.com

[James Curt]

Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good
enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing
ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration is
unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world did
not have access to storageble quantities of milk until
relatively recent times and the utilization of pasteurization
made it possible.

The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves.
Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another form
of control of one man over others and has little of merit on
which to proceed.

Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially
for our children.

That is not an attack on religion but on ignorance.

James Curts

"Hua Kul" <gmp@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:3da4c6e5.0307060202.5b288a34@posting.google.com...
> MO0$H <nill@nill.nill> wrote in message
news:<rd5fgvgc1692ke9i8c07s50i7ugjsgkm11@4ax.com>...
> > On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com (Ron)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out
> > and vote for a regulator that will make them do so.
>
> Let me fill you in on what your omniscient regulators are
> doing in the US. They are forbidding the Amish farmers in my
> home state from selling their milk. The Amish don't practice
> pasteurization. It doesn't matter if I want to drink their
> milk anyway, I have to be protected from their *evil*
> old-fashioned practice, which somehow was good enough for
> thousands of years.
>
> --Hua Kul
>
> huaREMOVEkul@NOTMAIL.com

[Jim Webste]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03...
> Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not good
> enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal growing
> ground for bacteria which without cooling or refrigeration
> is unfit to consume in a number of hours. Most of the world
> did not have access to storageble quantities of milk
until
> relatively recent times and the utilization of
> pasteurization made it possible.
>
> The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves.
> Their refusal
to
> move along with the times is yet another form of control of
> one man over others and has little of merit on which to
> proceed.
>
> Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially
> for our children.

drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our
family for as far back as anyone wants to go, certainly no TB
or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that we
know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella
testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going
to be a problem any more. It is probable that urban people
with their lower level of immunity to many things might be
wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge the only
countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are Scotland
and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here. Certainly in the
midst of one of our food scares they were even talking about
banning unpasturised cheese, at which point it was pointed out
that they couldn't because the French make and sell vast
quantities of unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to
prove it a health risk to ban the import and no one can come
up with enough evidence

Jim Webster

[James Curt]

I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with
my children for a while and all was well. We produced and
handled our own milk and took care with the process. My mother
was quite elated when electric refrigerators became available.
The icebox worked well up to a point.

I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger
who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern
health safeguards.

James Curts

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:be9o9h$m2$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03...
> > Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not
> > good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal
> > growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or
> > refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of
hours.
> > Most of the world did not have access to storageble
> > quantities of milk
> until
> > relatively recent times and the utilization of
> > pasteurization made it possible.
> >
> > The Amish should only force their illiteracy on
> > themselves. Their
refusal
> to
> > move along with the times is yet another form of control
> > of one man over others and has little of merit on which to
> > proceed.
> >
> > Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and
> > especially for our children.
>
> drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our
> family for as far back as anyone wants to go, certainly no
> TB or similar in the family in
the
> 20th cent and none that we know of in the century before
> that. With TB and Brucella testing in milk on an almost
> daily basis these are not going to
be
> a problem any more. It is probable that urban people with
> their lower level of immunity to
many
> things might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my
> knowledge the only countries than ban the sale of
> unpasturised milk are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might
> be wrong here. Certainly in the midst of one of our food
> scares they were even talking about banning unpasturised
> cheese, at which point it was pointed out that they couldn't
> because the French make and sell vast quantities of
> unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a
> health risk to ban the import and no one can come up with
> enough evidence
>
> Jim Webster

[Jim Webste]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03...
> I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along with
> my children for a while and all was well. We produced and
> handled our own milk and
took
> care with the process. My mother was quite elated when
> electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked
> well up to a point.
>
> I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a stranger
> who refused to utilize the most fundamental of proven modern
> health safeguards.
>
> James Curts

In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run
through to sell unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so
expensive that it probably isn't an economic concern

Jim Webster

[Gordon Cou]

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bea4lk$qtm$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03...
> > I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along
> > with my children for a while and all was well. We produced
> > and handled our own milk and
> took
> > care with the process. My mother was quite elated when
> > electric refrigerators became available. The icebox worked
> > well up to a point.
> >
> > I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a
> > stranger who refused
to
> > utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health
> > safeguards.
> >
> > James Curts
>
> In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to run
> through to
sell
> unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that it
> probably
isn't
> an economic concern
>
> Jim Webster
>
Jim,

When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7 they
tested all the dairy families and people who had been around
cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet none had
every had a fully expressed case of the disease. The same is
probably true for several other pathogens on the farm.

In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on
pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple
grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force
everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we have
a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the
dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we don't
have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a public
health point of view the answer is very simple, pasture
anything that can grow bacteria and you have less disease.

I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow
continues to cause when it caused about the same number of
deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one
and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the
panic at the time but to continue the charade after the
problem is understood is foolish.

Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was
never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure
benefited from it.

Gordon

[Jim Webste]

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed...

>
> When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7
> they tested all the dairy families and people who had been
> around cattle and found many
had
> anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully expressed
> case of the disease. The same is probably true for several
> other pathogens on the
farm.
>

While we were milking we got a letter from a chap at one of
the universities who wanted to test our herd for e coli 157.
The problem was, if we had found it, given the panic at the
time, our milk buyer would have stopped collecting it until we
had treated all the animals, whereas as the milk was all
pasteurised it isn't a problem anyway. So having them tested
was a no-brainer. I phoned the chap and had a chat with him
and discovered everyone else had worked this out as well. The
biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here it
means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before slaughter
and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible traces of
muck. This means that these cattle have to be trimmed out
while still alive and there have been quite a few people
injured trying to do this.

> In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on
> pasteurizing
everything.
> And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize his
> apple juice
they
> have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year
> or two we
have
> a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from the
> dairy but on
of
> the people handling the milk. But we don't have these
> problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point
> of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that can
> grow bacteria and you have less disease.
>
> I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow
> continues to cause when it caused about the same number of
> deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one
> and wreck your economy over the
other.
> I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the
> charade after
the
> problem is understood is foolish.
>
> Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was
> never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure
> benefited from it.
>

The UK Food Standards Agency is consulting on getting rid of
OTMS (for our non-UK readers this is the Over Thirty Month
Scheme where bovines do not enter the food chain once they get
over thirty months old but are incinerated instead.)

To maintain the current system is estimated to cost £736
million, To go over to testing individual animals like the
rest of Europe will probably cost £48 million. The estimate is
that the OTMS scheme probably prevents 1 case of nvCJD a year;
out of 80+ a year anyway.

Interestingly Susan Myles et al have produced a paper
quoted by the FSA report. Basically you have to put a cost
on the results of car accidents, kidney failure etc so you
can do the equivalent of financial triage to put the money
where it will do most good. It is estimated by the NHS that
they have an average cost of £50,000 per nvCJD patient.
Susan Myles calculates the costs for the family at a median
cost of £32,000.

Hence currently we are burning £736 million to save one life
and £82,000. Admittedly this is not an uncommon sort of
occurrence in the course of the BSE epidemic. Indeed at 90
cases a year, the cost is about £7.3 million. Given that there
is as much emotional pain and suffering for families who's
loved ones die of other diseases, I suspect that nvCJD is
going to drop well down the list for research priorities and a
lot of researchers who have made a good living out of the
disease are going to have to find a new field of endeavour.

Jim Webster.

> Gordon

[Tcomeau]

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:<3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed>...
> "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bea4lk$qtm$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:av_Na.51165$926.6097@sccrnsc03...
> > > I too was raised on unpasteurized milk also, Jim, along
> > > with my children for a while and all was well. We
> > > produced and handled our own milk and
> took
> > > care with the process. My mother was quite elated when
> > > electric refrigerators became available. The icebox
> > > worked well up to a point.
> > >
> > > I would certainly hesitate to buy a product from a
> > > stranger who refused
> to
> > > utilize the most fundamental of proven modern health
> > > safeguards.
> > >
> > > James Curts
> >
> > In the UK there are a fair battery of tests you have to
> > run through to
> sell
> > unpasturised milk, indeed the tests are so expensive that
> > it probably
> isn't
> > an economic concern
> >
> > Jim Webster
> >
> Jim,
>
> When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7
> they tested all the dairy families and people who had been
> around cattle and found many had anybodies ageist it yet
> none had every had a fully expressed case of the disease.
> The same is probably true for several other pathogens on
> the farm.
>
> In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on
> pasteurizing everything. And if they force the little apple
> grower to pasteurize his apple juice they have to force
> everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every year or two we
> have a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from
> the dairy but on of the people handling the milk. But we
> don't have these problems from pasteurized milk. From a
> public health point of view the answer is very simple,
> pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you have less
> disease.
>
> I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad cow
> continues to cause when it caused about the same number of
> deaths that are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one
> and wreck your economy over the other. I can understand the
> panic at the time but to continue the charade after the
> problem is understood is foolish.
>
> Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was
> never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market sure
> benefited from it.
>
> Gordon

It is costing Canada millions a *DAY*. Many family run
operations are suffering severe financial pain and may have to
shut down as a result.

The US keeps the border closed to Canadian beef while there
is a one in 20 chance that the cow actually came from the US.
Go figure.

TC

[James Curt]

One short question: Is e. coli157:H7 the only issue of concern
with the pasteurization of milk in these instances?

Thank you

James Curts

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beb3lc$fbc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in
> message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed...
>
> >
> > When people visinting farms started getting e. coli157:H7
> > they tested
all
> > the dairy families and people who had been around cattle
> > and found many
> had
> > anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully
> > expressed case of the disease. The same is probably true
> > for several other pathogens on the
> farm.
> >
>
> While we were milking we got a letter from a chap at
> one of the
universities
> who wanted to test our herd for e coli 157. The problem was,
> if we had
found
> it, given the panic at the time, our milk buyer would have
> stopped collecting it until we had treated all the animals,
> whereas as the milk
was
> all pasteurised it isn't a problem anyway. So having them
> tested was a no-brainer. I phoned the chap and had a chat
> with him and discovered everyone else had worked this out as
> well. The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry.
> Here it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before
> slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible
> traces of muck. This means that these cattle have to be
> trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a
> few people injured trying to do this.
>
> > In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on
> > pasteurizing
> everything.
> > And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize
> > his apple juice
> they
> > have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every
> > year or two we
> have
> > a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from
> > the dairy but on
> of
> > the people handling the milk. But we don't have these
> > problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health point
> > of view the answer is very simple, pasture anything that
> > can grow bacteria and you have less
disease.
> >
> > I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad
> > cow continues
to
> > cause when it caused about the same number of deaths that
> > are cased by unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck
> > your economy over the
> other.
> > I can understand the panic at the time but to continue the
> > charade after
> the
> > problem is understood is foolish.
> >
> > Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there was
> > never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle market
> > sure benefited from it.
> >
>
> The UK Food Standards Agency is consulting on getting rid of
> OTMS (for our non-UK readers this is the Over Thirty Month
> Scheme where bovines do not enter the food chain once they
> get over thirty months old but are incinerated instead.)
>
> To maintain the current system is estimated to cost £736
> million, To go over to testing individual animals like the
> rest of Europe will probably cost £48 million. The estimate
> is that the OTMS scheme probably prevents 1 case of nvCJD a
> year; out of 80+ a year anyway.
>
> Interestingly Susan Myles et al have produced a paper quoted
> by the FSA report. Basically you have to put a cost on the
> results of car accidents, kidney failure etc so you can do
> the equivalent of financial triage to put the money where it
> will do most good. It is estimated by the NHS that they have
> an average cost of £50,000 per nvCJD patient. Susan Myles
> calculates the costs for the family at a median cost of
> £32,000.
>
> Hence currently we are burning £736 million to save one life
> and £82,000. Admittedly this is not an uncommon sort of
> occurrence in the course of the BSE epidemic. Indeed at 90
> cases a year, the cost is about £7.3 million. Given that
there
> is as much emotional pain and suffering for families who's
> loved ones die
of
> other diseases, I suspect that nvCJD is going to drop well
> down the list
for
> research priorities and a lot of researchers who have made a
> good living
out
> of the disease are going to have to find a new field of
> endeavour.
>
> Jim Webster.
>
> > Gordon
> >
>

[Jim Webste]

> It is costing Canada millions a *DAY*. Many family run
> operations are suffering severe financial pain and may have
> to shut down as a result.
>
> The US keeps the border closed to Canadian beef while there
> is a one in 20 chance that the cow actually came from the
> US. Go figure.
>
> TC

As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the
Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we
could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes

Jim Webster

[Jim Webste]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lEiOa.127610$R73.15357@sccrnsc04...
> One short question: Is e. coli157:H7 the only issue of
> concern with the pasteurization of milk in these instances?
>

No, in the UK I would say that the big ones are TB and
Brucella

Jim Webster

> Thank you
>
> James Curts
>
>
> "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:beb3lc$fbc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in
> > message news:3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed...
> >
> > >
> > > When people visinting farms started getting e.
> > > coli157:H7 they tested
> all
> > > the dairy families and people who had been around cattle
> > > and found
many
> > had
> > > anybodies ageist it yet none had every had a fully
> > > expressed case of
the
> > > disease. The same is probably true for several other
> > > pathogens on the
> > farm.
> > >
> >
> > While we were milking we got a letter from a chap at one
> > of the
> universities
> > who wanted to test our herd for e coli 157. The problem
> > was, if we had
> found
> > it, given the panic at the time, our milk buyer would have
> > stopped collecting it until we had treated all the
> > animals, whereas as the milk
> was
> > all pasteurised it isn't a problem anyway. So having them
> > tested was a no-brainer. I phoned the chap and had a chat
> > with him and discovered everyone else had worked this out
> > as well. The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef
> > industry. Here it means that slaughter cattle have to be
> > clean before slaughter and by clean I mean
no
> > muck buttons and no visible traces of muck. This means
> > that these cattle have to be trimmed out while still alive
> > and there have been quite a few people injured trying to
> > do this.
> >
> > > In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on
> > > pasteurizing
> > everything.
> > > And if they force the little apple grower to pasteurize
> > > his apple
juice
> > they
> > > have to force everyone to pasteurize every thing. Every
> > > year or two we
> > have
> > > a problem with unpasteurized milk. Often it is not from
> > > the dairy but
on
> > of
> > > the people handling the milk. But we don't have these
> > > problems from pasteurized milk. From a public health
> > > point of view the answer is
very
> > > simple, pasture anything that can grow bacteria and you
> > > have less
> disease.
> > >
> > > I have never been able to under stand the panic that mad
> > > cow continues
> to
> > > cause when it caused about the same number of deaths
> > > that are cased
by
> > > unpasturised cheese. You defend one and wreck your
> > > economy over the
> > other.
> > > I can understand the panic at the time but to continue
> > > the charade
after
> > the
> > > problem is understood is foolish.
> > >
> > > Mad cow just cost Canada millions of dollars and there
> > > was never a measurable risk to anyone. The US cattle
> > > market sure benefited from
it.
> > >
> >
> > The UK Food Standards Agency is consulting on getting rid
> > of OTMS (for
our
> > non-UK readers this is the Over Thirty Month Scheme where
> > bovines do not enter the food chain once they get over
> > thirty months old but are incinerated instead.)
> >
> > To maintain the current system is estimated to cost £736
> > million, To go over to testing individual animals like the
> > rest of Europe will probably cost £48 million. The
> > estimate is that the OTMS scheme probably prevents 1 case
> > of nvCJD a year; out of 80+ a year anyway.
> >
> > Interestingly Susan Myles et al have produced a paper
> > quoted by the FSA report. Basically you have to put a cost
> > on the results of car
accidents,
> > kidney failure etc so you can do the equivalent of
> > financial triage to put the money where it will do most
> > good. It is estimated by the NHS that they have an average
> > cost of £50,000 per nvCJD patient. Susan Myles calculates
> > the costs for the family at a
median
> > cost of £32,000.
> >
> > Hence currently we are burning £736 million to save one
> > life and
£82,000.
> > Admittedly this is not an uncommon sort of occurrence in
> > the course of
the
> > BSE epidemic. Indeed at 90 cases a year, the cost is about
> > £7.3 million. Given that
> there
> > is as much emotional pain and suffering for families who's
> > loved ones
die
> of
> > other diseases, I suspect that nvCJD is going to drop well
> > down the list
> for
> > research priorities and a lot of researchers who have made
> > a good living
> out
> > of the disease are going to have to find a new field of
> > endeavour.
> >
> > Jim Webster.
> >
> > > Gordon
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[Oz]

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes

>As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the
>Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we
>could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes

Seconded.

--
Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably
fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will
be accepted.

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:58:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

>As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the
>Canadians have my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we
>could offer advice but I do offer my best wishes

I wonder what would happen if Canada ban import of US
meats?? (I think I know the answer, and that's why it would
never happen)

[Gordon Cou]

"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:3ndyx8F1qlC$EwAY@btopenworld.com...
> Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
>
> >As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end, the
> >Canadians
have
> >my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could offer
> >advice but I do offer my best wishes
>
> Seconded.

I see they are trying to get is squared up the end buy the
end of July.

If we don't close our borders to Canada the rest of the world
will close theirs to us. Japan seriously considered stopping
US beef as well becuse practically there is little distinction
between US and Canada in trading cattle across the border. The
guys up north don't like it much because they feel the
Canadian cattle hurt their prices. But that has been a long
running battle between the US and Canada all my life. The guys
from Canada come down and cut wheat for 10% less than the guys
in the US can because they don't have to pay taxes on the
money made in the US and we have to pay taxes on money made in
Canada. We are the only country that taxes income made in
other countries. I have a friend living out side of London
that avoid paying taxes anywhere most of his life. He worked
for one of the oil companies in as a geologist in the north
sea. When they want to transfer him back to the US to Houston
he quit and when into consulting. Siberia he might have
considered but not Houston.

Gordon

[Hua Kul]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03>...
>
> The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves.

Actually, they read quite well.

--Hua Kul

[Fred Blogg]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03>...
> The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves.

I got the impression that's what they were doing, only the
government was stepping in and saying `we know best`.

> Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another
> form of control of one man over others and has little of
> merit on which to proceed.

If that's what they want to do, shouldn't that be the only
reason they need?

[James Curt]

Ah, yes, but to inconsequential avail. Other than suppressing
their own kind and preventing their youth from joining and
advancing with the rest of the modern world their small cult
survives by enforcing a form of isolationalism.

Yet another form of a religious pestilence which only survives
by rote of one man having indisputable control over another.
This is one of the issues which separate civilized people from
those of other harshly suppressed groups through out the third
world areas

We certainly do not need their crude products dispersed among
the unsuspecting.

James Curts

"Hua Kul" <gmp@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:3da4c6e5.0307080621.1bfa0a90@posting.google.com...
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03>...
> >
> > The Amish should only force their illiteracy on
> > themselves.
>
> Actually, they read quite well.
>
> --Hua Kul

[James Curt]

Perhaps, but when they try to sell an ambiguous product the
public the door is rightfully opened for governmental
intervention. In this instance government does work.

James Curts

"Fred Bloggs" <mrfredbloggs@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa2f473d.0307080832.1374bd9@posting.google.com...
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03>...
> > The Amish should only force their illiteracy on
> > themselves.
>
> I got the impression that's what they were doing, only the
> government was stepping in and saying `we know best`.
>
> > Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another
> > form of control of one man over others and has little of
> > merit on which to proceed.
>
> If that's what they want to do, shouldn't that be the only
> reason they need?

[James Curt]

To continue, we have mentally disadvantaged religious sects in
this country who will allow their children to die from
relatively minor ailments and injuries. Thankfully they are
being rooted out and the abusers are finding homes in jails
and the rest are being encouraged to join the more wise
thinkers of their race.

I cannot in any manner condone the refusal to use all of
today's common sense tools to improve, protect and promote
human life and particular for our children.

James Curts

"Fred Bloggs" <mrfredbloggs@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa2f473d.0307080832.1374bd9@posting.google.com...
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03>...
> > The Amish should only force their illiteracy on
> > themselves.
>
> I got the impression that's what they were doing, only the
> government was stepping in and saying `we know best`.
>
> > Their refusal to move along with the times is yet another
> > form of control of one man over others and has little of
> > merit on which to proceed.
>
> If that's what they want to do, shouldn't that be the only
> reason they need?

[Fred Blogg]

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:<3f0769c5$1_4@newsfeed>...
> In the US e. coli157:H7 is putting the pressure on
> pasteurizing everything.

Those damned bacteria with their superior lobbying
skills... :)

[Dean Ronn]

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:3f091b24_3@newsfeed...
>
> "Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3ndyx8F1qlC$EwAY@btopenworld.com...
> > Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
> >
> > >As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end,
> > >the Canadians
> have
> > >my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could offer
> > >advice but I
do
> > >offer my best wishes
> >
> > Seconded.
>
> I see they are trying to get is squared up the end buy the
> end of July.
>
> If we don't close our borders to Canada the rest of the
> world will close theirs to us. Japan seriously considered
> stopping US beef as well becuse practically there is little
> distinction between US and Canada in trading cattle across
> the border. The guys up north don't like it much because
they
> feel the Canadian cattle hurt their prices. But that has
> been a long
running
> battle between the US and Canada all my life. The guys from
> Canada come
down
> and cut wheat for 10% less than the guys in the US can
> because they don't have to pay taxes on the money made in
> the US and we have to pay taxes on money made in Canada.

We are the only country that taxes income made in
> other countries.

Please, Gordon, study the U.S.A., Canada treaty a little
closer that that. It states:

"Income U.S.A. residents recieve for the performance
of dependent personal services in Canada(except as
public entertainers) is exempt from Canadian tax if it
is not more than $10,000 in Canadian currency for the
year. If it is more than $10,000 for the year, it is
exempt only if:

1) The residents are present in Canada for nor more than
183 days during the calender year, and

2) The income is not borne by a Canadian resident
employer or by a permanent establishment or fixed
base of an employer in Canada.

This treaty works both ways. You can replace the word
Canada with the U.S.A in the example above. In other
words, when the custom harvesters come up here,(there
are a lot of them), it makes for the same situation.

Now that I've said that:

"When a Canadian resident is transferred to the U.S.
for a short term assignment, the starting point for
saving taxes is determining whether it is possible to
break Canadian residence. A Canadian resident is
subject to Canadian tax on global income regardless
of the source of the income or where it is paid. A
non-resident of Canada would be subject to Canadian
tax only on income from Canadin sources. Since the
U.S. tax rates are typically much lower than Canadian
rates, it is generally advantageous to be taxable in
the U.S. rather than in Canada." Check out the
following link. It illustrates the tax liability as a
resident of Canada as compared to the taxes payable
as a resident of the U.S. at different income levels.

http://www.grasmick.com/lessta-
x.htm

Not as rosy as you thought is was, now is it??????

Dean





I have a friend living out side of London that avoid paying
> taxes anywhere most of his life. He worked for one of the
> oil companies in as a geologist in the north sea. When they
> want to transfer him back to
the
> US to Houston he quit and when into consulting. Siberia he
> might have considered but not Houston.
>
> Gordon

[Gordon Cou]

"Dean Ronn" <@home> wrote in message
news:vgliub1l53m2bf@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> "Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in
> message news:3f091b24_3@newsfeed...
> >
> > "Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ndyx8F1qlC$EwAY@btopenworld.com...
> > > Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
> > >
> > > >As someone who has lived through this at the sharp end,
> > > >the Canadians
> > have
> > > >my sincere sympathy. Like most UK farmers we could
> > > >offer advice but I
> do
> > > >offer my best wishes
> > >
> > > Seconded.
> >
> > I see they are trying to get is squared up the end buy the
> > end of July.
> >
> > If we don't close our borders to Canada the rest of the
> > world will close theirs to us. Japan seriously considered
> > stopping US beef as well becuse practically there is
> > little distinction between US and Canada in trading cattle
> > across the border. The guys up north don't like it much
> > because
> they
> > feel the Canadian cattle hurt their prices. But that has
> > been a long
> running
> > battle between the US and Canada all my life. The guys
> > from Canada come
> down
> > and cut wheat for 10% less than the guys in the US can
> > because they
don't
> > have to pay taxes on the money made in the US and we have
> > to pay taxes
on
> > money made in Canada.
>
>
>
>
> We are the only country that taxes income made in
> > other countries.
>
> Please, Gordon, study the U.S.A., Canada treaty a
> little closer that that. It states:
>
> "Income U.S.A. residents recieve for the performance
> of dependent personal services in Canada(except as
> public entertainers) is exempt from Canadian tax if it
> is not more than $10,000 in Canadian currency for the
> year. If it is more than $10,000 for the year, it is
> exempt only if:
>
> 1) The residents are present in Canada for nor more
> than 183 days during the calender year, and
>
> 2) The income is not borne by a Canadian resident
> employer or by a permanent establishment or fixed
> base of an employer in Canada.
>
> This treaty works both ways. You can replace the
> word Canada with the U.S.A in the example above. In
> other words, when the custom harvesters come up
> here,(there are a lot of them), it makes for the
> same situation.
>
>
> Now that I've said that:
>
> "When a Canadian resident is transferred to the
> U.S. for a short term assignment, the starting
> point for saving taxes is determining
whether
> it is possible to break Canadian residence. A Canadian
> resident is subject to Canadian tax on global income
> regardless of the source of the income or where it is paid.
> A non-resident of Canada would be subject to Canadian
tax
> only on income from Canadin sources. Since the U.S. tax
> rates are
typically
> much lower than Canadian rates, it is generally advantageous
> to be taxable in the U.S. rather than in Canada." Check out
> the following link. It illustrates the tax liability as a
> resident of Canada as compared to the taxes payable as a
> resident of the U.S. at different income levels.
>
> http://www.grasmick.com/less-
> tax.htm
>
>
> Not as rosy as you thought is was, now is
> it??????
>

Your as bad as we are. It is making the Caribbean Islands a
popular place to set up businesses with very low income taxes
and very closed mouthed about their business. The US is
driving major corporations off shore. Last time I was in
Canada I read an article it was a problem there as well.

I do know one fellow that never stays in any country 6 months.
He can work were every he can connect to the internet the
company he works for is incorporated under one of the
convenient flags that aren't very communicate about tax
matters. I expect he will tire of it one day but at 28 and
newly married it is a nice honeymoon.

There are inequities on both sides of the border that are
attractive to people living on the border. I always buy a
bunch of mercury camera batteries when I am up there. They are
outlawed down here. You meat in Vancouver was a better buy
than it was in Oklahoma the last time I was there.

Your sales taxes smart a bit but we are going to catch up a
lot over then next couple of years.

Gordon

Gordon

[Oz]

Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> writes

>I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just
>as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the
>speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any
>population is more immune to what it is often exposed to. And
>those who don't measure up just die out :)

This is not what has been reported in the UK, from trials in
many parts of the world.

*RURAL* populations have the same level of asthma.

Families of livestock farmers have very significantly lower
rates, as to people living in unsanitary environments
(typically third world).

There have been threads on this giving references, but I
forget the precise names. You could try searching for "let
them eat dirt", which was the first new scientist article that
collated some of the (early) evidence, there is more certain
later work. It will probably have been referenced somewhere in
most of the threads.

There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main
mutually inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I
always forget). One basically designed to hit bacteria, the
other viruses and toxins. In the event of unnaturally low
exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary living) the
virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive
and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both
allergies and auto-immune diseases (both being very
significantly higher in the first world).

Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of
antibiotics in young farm animals (babies in effect) attacked
by a serious virus. It is usual for them to recover from the
virus, only to succumb to a bacterial disease (often scours).
The switching over to viral attack, leaves their immature
immune system open to attack by bacteria. This is so common as
to be expected.

--
Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably
fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will
be accepted.

[Moosh:]]

On 6 Jul 2003 03:02:24 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:

>MO0$H <nill@nill.nill> wrote in message
>news:<rd5fgvgc1692ke9i8c07s50i7ugjsgkm11@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Jul 2003 14:26:25 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com
>> (Ron) wrote:
>>
>>
>> If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out and
>> vote for a regulator that will make them do so.
>
>Let me fill you in on what your omniscient regulators are
>doing in the US.

Not my regulators, Sunshine. I vote for mine with a view to
doing the best for the Australian community.

>They are forbidding the Amish farmers in my home state from
>selling their milk. The Amish don't practice pasteurization.

Seems fair enough. Public safety and all that. Why won't they
make it safe by pasteurisation? Same reason they wear those
silly hats?

> It doesn't matter if I want to drink their milk anyway,
> I have to be protected from their *evil* old-fashioned
> practice, which somehow was good enough for thousands
> of years.

If you drank the milk and got ill, who would have to look
after you and yours? The public purse? If you could arrange to
sign a legal waiver of your (and your dependents') civil
rights here, you probably would be allowed to buy it.

Else you could start your own country with your own rules.

[Moosh:]]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:24:13 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

>"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03...
>> Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not
>> good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal
>> growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or
>> refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of hours.
>> Most of the world did not have access to storageble
>> quantities of milk
>until
>> relatively recent times and the utilization of
>> pasteurization made it possible.
>>
>> The Amish should only force their illiteracy on themselves.
>> Their refusal
>to
>> move along with the times is yet another form of control of
>> one man over others and has little of merit on which to
>> proceed.
>>
>> Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and especially
>> for our children.
>
>drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our
>family for as far back as anyone wants to go,

Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from just
anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :)

>certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and
>none that we know of in the century before that. With TB and
>Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are
>not going to be a problem any more.

But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons,
would they?

>It is probable that urban people with their lower level of
>immunity to many things

Where do you get this from?

>might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge
>the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are
>Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here.

I believe you might :)

>Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were
>even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which
>point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the
>French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese
>to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the
>import and no one can come up with enough evidence

I thought they had.

[Jim Webste]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:560vgvsmbaekuikaqvoh3pc65g740ccmqb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:24:13 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03...
> >> Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not
> >> good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal
> >> growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or
> >> refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of
hours.
> >> Most of the world did not have access to storageble
> >> quantities of milk
> >until
> >> relatively recent times and the utilization of
> >> pasteurization made it possible.
> >>
> >> The Amish should only force their illiteracy on
> >> themselves. Their
refusal
> >to
> >> move along with the times is yet another form of control
> >> of one man
over
> >> others and has little of merit on which to proceed.
> >>
> >> Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and
> >> especially for our children.
> >
> >drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our
> >family for as
far
> >back as anyone wants to go,
>
> Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from
> just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :)

have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing it
has to go through I haven't any worries.
>
> >certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th
> >cent and none that we know of in the century before
> >that. With TB
and
> >Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are
> >not going to
be
> >a problem any more.
>
> But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons,
> would they?

god alone kows

>
> >It is probable that urban people with their lower level of
> >immunity to
many
> >things
>
> Where do you get this from?

just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm
populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things

>
> >might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge
> >the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk
> >are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here.
>
> I believe you might :)
>
> >Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were
> >even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which
> >point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the
> >French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese
> >to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the
> >import and no one can come up with enough evidence
>
> I thought they had.

plenty of hysteria, no evidence

Jim Webster

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>news:560vgvsmbaekuikaqvoh3pc65g740ccmqb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:24:13 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:UpWNa.49412$926.5334@sccrnsc03...
>> >> Well, don't have a run away here. In reality it was Not
>> >> good enough for thousands of years. Milk is an ideal
>> >> growing ground for bacteria which without cooling or
>> >> refrigeration is unfit to consume in a number of
>hours.
>> >> Most of the world did not have access to storageble
>> >> quantities of milk
>> >until
>> >> relatively recent times and the utilization of
>> >> pasteurization made it possible.
>> >>
>> >> The Amish should only force their illiteracy on
>> >> themselves. Their
>refusal
>> >to
>> >> move along with the times is yet another form of control
>> >> of one man
>over
>> >> others and has little of merit on which to proceed.
>> >>
>> >> Pasteurization of milk was huge step forward and
>> >> especially for our children.
>> >
>> >drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our
>> >family for as
>far
>> >back as anyone wants to go,
>>
>> Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from
>> just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :)
>
>have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing
>it has to go through I haven't any worries.

That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to want
to dispense with all of that new fangled testing and stuff. I
wouldn't buy unpasteurised dairy from a roadside stall.

>> >certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th
>> >cent and none that we know of in the century before
>> >that. With TB
>and
>> >Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these
>> >are not going to
>be
>> >a problem any more.
>>
>> But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar reasons,
>> would they?
>
>god alone kows

Two puns in the one short sentence. Good one, Jim :)

>> >It is probable that urban people with their lower level of
>> >immunity to
>many
>> >things
>>
>> Where do you get this from?
>
>just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm
>populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things

I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just
as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the
speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any
population is more immune to what it is often exposed to. And
those who don't measure up just die out :)

>> >might be wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge
>> >the only countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk
>> >are Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here.
>>
>> I believe you might :)
>>
>> >Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were
>> >even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which
>> >point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the
>> >French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised
>> >cheese to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to
>> >ban the import and no one can come up with enough evidence
>>
>> I thought they had.
>
>plenty of hysteria, no evidence

Can't remember where (or what day it is :) but recently I read
about the number of cases of food poisoning from unpasteurised
cheese. Perhaps it was a public scare propaganda campaign to
stop unpasteurised imports :)

[Jim Webste]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:joivgv8n0dqrvd4np3oq5n75fi1kdqa14f@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from
> >> just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :)
> >
> >have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing
> >it has to go through I haven't any worries.
>
> That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to want
> to dispense with all of that new fangled testing and stuff.
> I wouldn't buy unpasteurised dairy from a roadside stall.

In the UK you might be able to sell it from a roadside stall,
but the stall would have to meet certain standards and the
milk would still be tested. Indeed in theory I ought to have a
warning notice on our fridge so that my wife and daughter know
that it is unpasteurised milk.

Ignoring the health aspect for a minute, unpasteurised milk is
best drunk cold (direct from the bulk tank is ideal) and a
road side stall is unlikely to be cold enough)

>
> >> >certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th
> >> >cent and none that we know of in the century before
> >> >that. With TB
> >and
> >> >Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis these
> >> >are not going
to
> >be
> >> >a problem any more.
> >>
> >> But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar
> >> reasons, would they?
> >
> >god alone kows
>
> Two puns in the one short sentence. Good one, Jim :)

we exist purely to serve :-)

>
> >> >It is probable that urban people with their lower level
> >> >of immunity to
> >many
> >> >things
> >>
> >> Where do you get this from?
> >
> >just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm
> >populations
tend
> >to have higher immunity to certain things
>
> I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just
> as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the
> speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any
> population is more immune to what it is often exposed to.
> And those who don't measure up just die out :)

rural or farm immunity to E Coli 157 was mentioned earlier in
this thread. I suspect my level of immunity to ringworm is a
lot higher than the population at large :-)

>
> Can't remember where (or what day it is :) but recently I
> read about the number of cases of food poisoning from
> unpasteurised cheese. Perhaps it was a public scare
> propaganda campaign to stop unpasteurised imports :)

certainly the French are perfectly happy with unpasteurised
cheese. In the UK I think they merely suggest that they are
not advised for pregnant women

Jim Webster

[Hua Kul]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:<u10vgvcdd2ag9ghp6qck9e07hdk6dcatdb@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out
> >> and vote for a regulator that will make them do so.
> >>
> >> I vote for mine with a view to doing the best for the
> >> Australian community.
>
> >> If you drank the milk and got ill, who would have to look
> >> after you and yours? The public purse? If you could
> >> arrange to sign a legal waiver of your (and your
> >> dependents') civil rights here, you probably would be
> >> allowed to buy it.
> >>

Little buzzing fly wants to be Big Brother. If you had lived
in the United States in 1776 you probably would have been a
Loyalist. "Can't drink my tea without paying huge taxes on it?
Sure! Tax my milk too, even though the cow is mine!"

--Hua Kul

[Moosh:]]

On 12 Jul 2003 06:08:44 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:

>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>news:<u10vgvcdd2ag9ghp6qck9e07hdk6dcatdb@4ax.com>...
>> >>
>> >> If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out
>> >> and vote for a regulator that will make them do so.
>> >>
>> >> I vote for mine with a view to doing the best for the
>> >> Australian community.
>>
>> >> If you drank the milk and got ill, who would have to
>> >> look after you and yours? The public purse? If you could
>> >> arrange to sign a legal waiver of your (and your
>> >> dependents') civil rights here, you probably would be
>> >> allowed to buy it.
>> >>
>
>Little buzzing fly wants to be Big Brother. If you had lived
>in the United States in 1776 you probably would have been a
>Loyalist. "Can't drink my tea without paying huge taxes on
>it? Sure! Tax my milk too, even though the cow is mine!"

Not sure what you are rabbitting on about, but you seem to
require a little sociology education and a short civics
primer. You don't seem to realise the responsibilities and
duties required of living in your society. Oh well, you're in
good company :(

[James Curt]

"Hua Kul" <gmp@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:3da4c6e5.0307120508.67bb4ae2@posting.google.com...
> "Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:<u10vgvcdd2ag9ghp6qck9e07hdk6dcatdb@4ax.com>...
> > >>
> > >> If your corporations are not doing as you wish, get out
> > >> and vote for
a
> > >> regulator that will make them do so.
> > >>
> > >> I vote for mine with a view to doing the best for the
> > >> Australian community.
> >
> > >> If you drank the milk and got ill, who would have to
> > >> look after you and yours? The public purse? If you
> > >> could arrange to sign a legal waiver of your (and your
> > >> dependents') civil rights here, you probably would be
> > >> allowed to buy it.
> > >>
>
> Little buzzing fly wants to be Big Brother. If you had lived
> in the United States in 1776 you probably would have been a
> Loyalist. "Can't drink my tea without paying huge taxes on
> it? Sure! Tax my milk too, even though the cow is mine!"
>
> --Hua Kul

Hua Kul,

Your history is somewhat flawed but of more import is the fact
that owning a production item (cow) does not impart to you the
unrestricted right to sell at profit a product from this
production item which does not conform to the standards deemed
safe today and enforced by law.

I do not condemn your isolationist way of life but certainly
do not wish it's short comings and risks foisted on friends
and family.

Thank you

James Curts

[cor]

Ron wrote:
>
> .
>
> The Bully's New Victim
>
> Monsanto has declared war on another little guy. Monsanto is
> a big bully, but I've got a secret that will bring them to
> their knees.
>
> Their timing was designed to create despair and suffering.
> Their legal papers were filed on the Thursday before the
> long July 4th holiday weekend. No time for attorneys to
> review the complaint. A long Friday, Saturday, and Sunday
> for Althea, Stanley, and William Bennett, third generation
> owners of Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine.
>
> Their timing is also unfortunate for Monsanto's
> stockholders. As biotechnology is being debated around the
> world, as the European Community considers easing rules
...

>
> Monsanto has filed papers in federal court, arguing that
> milk from cows treated with their genetically engineered
> bovine growth hormone is no different from untreated milk.
>
> That is a lie, of course, and Monsanto knows it.

The proof of that is that they hold a patent. a patented
product is by definition something unique and special,
otherwise it wouldn't be patentable. If the hormones have no
effect on the cows, how are they producing more milk per unit
of feed? I think Monsanto is planting the seeds for that
patent to be revoked or to reinvent physiology for a brave new
world of hormones with no effects.

>
> I have evidence that Monsanto's own scientist (Margaret
> Miller) confirmed the validity of an assay that can
> determine the difference between genetically engineered milk
...

[cor]

all those in your family that where born! A bunch of fetuses
probably got the natural selection hatchet before having a
chance of drinking milk, thanks to having you and your
relatives as idiotic parents.

Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in
the listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny
before is born!

http://www.about-listeria.com/ http://www.darwinawards.com/

Jim Webster wrote: ....
>
> drunk unpasturised milk all my life, and everyone in our
> family for as far back as anyone wants to go, certainly no
> TB or similar in the family in the 20th cent and none that
> we know of in the century before that. With TB and Brucella
> testing in milk on an almost daily basis these are not going
> to be a problem any more. It is probable that urban people
> with their lower level of immunity to many things might be
> wise to avoid it, but to the best of my knowledge the only
> countries than ban the sale of unpasturised milk are
> Scotland and Canada, althrough I might be wrong here.
> Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were
> even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at which
> point it was pointed out that they couldn't because the
> French make and sell vast quantities of unpasturised cheese
> to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban the
> import and no one can come up with enough evidence
>
> Jim Webster

[Jim Webste]

<cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
news:3F113281.94B61451@exchangenet.net...
> all those in your family that where born! A bunch of fetuses
> probably got the natural selection hatchet before having a
> chance of drinking milk, thanks to having you and your
> relatives as idiotic parents.
>
> Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in the
> listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny before
> is born!

tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we

you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the stress
of believing half the loonie scares that circulate than you
are from actually eating the food

Jim Webster

[cor]

Now the "belief" that listeria is dangerous makes you a
loonie?

Jim Webster wrote:
>
> <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
> news:3F113281.94B61451@exchangenet.net...
> > all those in your family that where born! A bunch of
> > fetuses probably got the natural selection hatchet before
> > having a chance of drinking milk, thanks to having you and
> > your relatives as idiotic parents.
> >
> > Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in
> > the listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny
> > before is born!
>
> tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we
>
> you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the stress
> of believing half the loonie scares that circulate than you
> are from actually eating the food
>
> Jim Webster

[Jim Webste]

<cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
news:3F12D2F9.4AC3625C@exchangenet.net...
> Now the "belief" that listeria is dangerous makes you
> a loonie?
>

no, hysteria makes you a loonie.

getting up tight about a vague possibility that someone you
have never met might possibly have had ancestors who lost
children or miscarried shows that you obviously haven't got
anything worth while to think about

Jim Webster

[Bruce Sinc]

In article <berhuc$64v$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
><cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
>news:3F113281.94B61451@exchangenet.net...
>> all those in your family that where born! A bunch of
>> fetuses probably got the natural selection hatchet before
>> having a chance of drinking milk, thanks to having you and
>> your relatives as idiotic parents.
>>
>> Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in the
>> listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny before
>> is born!
>
>tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we
>
>you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the stress
>of believing half the loonie scares that circulate than you
>are from actually eating the food

Well said ! ... the effects of stress from worrying about what
you are eating have not, to my knowledge, been measured.

You have to die of something ... it may as well be food :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------
----------
Oook ! NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM
!

[Gordon Cou]

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz>
wrote in message news:SYKQa.4925$9f7.571578@news02.tsnz.net...
> In article <berhuc$64v$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim
> Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> ><cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:3F113281.94B61451@exchangenet.net...
> >> all those in your family that where born! A bunch of
> >> fetuses probably got the natural selection hatchet before
> >> having a chance of drinking milk, thanks to having you
> >> and your relatives as idiotic parents.
> >>
> >> Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in
> >> the listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny
> >> before is born!
> >
> >tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we
> >
> >you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the
> >stress of believing half the loonie scares that circulate
> >than you are from actually eating
the
> >food
>
> Well said ! ... the effects of stress from worrying about
> what you are
eating
> have not, to my knowledge, been measured.
>
> You have to die of something ... it may as well be food :)
>
You are much more likely to die in a car accident than from
listeria for unpasturized products. If you are really
concerned about your life you would not drive a car.

Gordon

[Gordon Cou]

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beokjp$r6l$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
> news:joivgv8n0dqrvd4np3oq5n75fi1kdqa14f@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> > <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised
> > >> from just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :)
> > >
> > >have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the
> > >testing it has to
go
> > >through I haven't any worries.
> >
> > That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to
> > want to dispense with all of that new fangled testing and
> > stuff. I wouldn't buy unpasteurised dairy from a roadside
> > stall.
>
> In the UK you might be able to sell it from a roadside
> stall, but the
stall
> would have to meet certain standards and the milk would
> still be tested. Indeed in theory I ought to have a warning
> notice on our fridge so that my wife and daughter know that
> it is unpasteurised milk.
>
> Ignoring the health aspect for a minute, unpasteurised milk
> is best drunk cold (direct from the bulk tank is ideal) and
> a road side stall is
unlikely
> to be cold enough)
>
> >
> > >> >certainly no TB or similar in the family in the 20th
> > >> >cent and none that we know of in the century before
> > >> >that. With
TB
> > >and
> > >> >Brucella testing in milk on an almost daily basis
> > >> >these are not
going
> to
> > >be
> > >> >a problem any more.
> > >>
> > >> But the Amish wouldn't do that either, for similar
> > >> reasons, would they?
> > >
> > >god alone kows
> >
> > Two puns in the one short sentence. Good one, Jim :)
>
> we exist purely to serve :-)
>
>
> >
> > >> >It is probable that urban people with their lower
> > >> >level of immunity
to
> > >many
> > >> >things
> > >>
> > >> Where do you get this from?
> > >
> > >just read widely, you find that rural populations and
> > >farm populations
> tend
> > >to have higher immunity to certain things
> >
> > I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have
> > just as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all
> > the speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine
> > any population is more immune to what it is often exposed
> > to. And those who don't measure up just die out :)
>
> rural or farm immunity to E Coli 157 was mentioned earlier
> in this thread.
I
> suspect my level of immunity to ringworm is a lot higher
> than the
population
> at large :-)
>
> >
> > Can't remember where (or what day it is :) but recently I
> > read about
> > the number of cases of food poisoning from unpasteurised
> > cheese. Perhaps it was a public scare propaganda campaign
> > to stop unpasteurised imports :)
>
> certainly the French are perfectly happy with unpasteurised
> cheese. In the UK I think they merely suggest that they are
> not advised for pregnant
women
>

I would have no problems drinking unpasturised milk when I was
a kid we had a cow and then a goat for a while. Goats milk is
the better of the two.

The health and safety people are over zealous on the subject
and they will win. It is amazing the differences in what
different people have problems with. In California it fine to
kill a horse and make dog food out of it but it is against the
law to sell it if it is going to be used for human
consumption. Sure has hurt the California horse sales and
helped their neighbors. We are going to let the world beat us
to stem cell research by placating the religious right. I
expect we are loosing researchers to friendlier climates
faster than we are gaining biotech people.

The whole world is upside down on risk management. They let a
few squawking crows side track the whole world.

Gordon.

[cor]

Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>
....
> >tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we
> >
> >you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the
> >stress of believing half the loonie scares that circulate
> >than you are from actually eating the food
>
> Well said ! ... the effects of stress from worrying about
> what you are eating have not, to my knowledge, been
> measured.
>
> You have to die of something ... it may as well be food :)
>
> Bruce
...

"have to die of something" is what those children that survive
diarrea say to the parents of the children dead by the
millions by the same cause? Or do the children that die from
diarrea actually die from worrying too much? Those that
survive do the talking while the dead are just sad statistics?

[Bruce Sinc]

In article <3f124326_1@newsfeed>, "Gordon Couger"
<gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
>"Bruce Sinclair"
><bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
>message news:SYKQa.4925$9f7.571578@news02.tsnz.net...
>> In article <berhuc$64v$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim
>> Webster"
><Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> ><cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3F113281.94B61451@exchangenet.net...
>> >> all those in your family that where born! A bunch of
>> >> fetuses probably got the natural selection hatchet
>> >> before having a chance of drinking milk, thanks to
>> >> having you and your relatives as idiotic parents.
>> >>
>> >> Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in
>> >> the listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny
>> >> before is born!
>> >
>> >tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we
>> >
>> >you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the
>> >stress of believing half the loonie scares that circulate
>> >than you are from actually eating
>the
>> >food
>>
>> Well said ! ... the effects of stress from worrying about
>> what you are
>eating
>> have not, to my knowledge, been measured. You have to die
>> of something ... it may as well be food :)
>>
>You are much more likely to die in a car accident than from
>listeria for unpasturized products. If you are really
>concerned about your life you would not drive a car.

Quite so :) ... and in fact most people are quite resistant
to listeria.

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------
----------
Oook ! NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM
!

[cor]

Gordon Couger wrote: ...
> You are much more likely to die in a car accident than from
> listeria for unpasturized products. If you are really
> concerned about your life you would not drive a car.
>
> Gordon

I am already born. If I was a fetus of a mom drinking
unpasteurized milk, then I would be worried. And those fetus
that die, do not complain.

[cor]

Jim Webster wrote:
>
> <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
> news:3F12D2F9.4AC3625C@exchangenet.net...
> > Now the "belief" that listeria is dangerous makes you a
> > loonie?
> >
>
> no, hysteria makes you a loonie.
>
> getting up tight about a vague possibility that someone you
> have never met might possibly have had ancestors who lost
> children or miscarried shows that you obviously haven't got
> anything worth while to think about
>
> Jim Webster

death of thousands of preventable causes are not worth
thinking about?

[cor]

Bruce Sinclair wrote: ...
> >You are much more likely to die in a car accident than from
> >listeria for unpasturized products. If you are really
> >concerned about your life you would not drive a car.
>
> Quite so :) ... and in fact most people are quite resistant
> to listeria.
>
> Bruce

The most susceptible being the fetuses?

> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> Oook ! NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply.
> NO SPAM !

[cor]

Gordon Couger wrote:
>
...
> I would have no problems drinking unpasturised milk when I
> was a kid we had a cow and then a goat for a while. Goats
> milk is the better of the two.
>
> The health and safety people are over zealous on the
> subject and they will win. It is amazing the differences
> in what different people have problems with. In California
> it fine to kill a horse and make dog food out of it but it
> is against the law to sell it if it is going to be used
> for human

overzealous? Dogs guts evolved to eat raw cadavers. People had
to learn to cook their meat.

> consumption. Sure has hurt the California horse sales and
> helped their neighbors. We are going to let the world beat
> us to stem cell research by placating the religious right. I
> expect we are loosing researchers to friendlier climates
> faster than we are gaining biotech people.
>
> The whole world is upside down on risk management. They let
> a few squawking crows side track the whole world.
>
> Gordon.

[Jim Webste]

<cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
news:3F150C85.A9B31688@exchangenet.net...
>
>
> Jim Webster wrote:
> >
> > <cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F12D2F9.4AC3625C@exchangenet.net...
> > > Now the "belief" that listeria is dangerous makes you a
> > > loonie?
> > >
> >
> > no, hysteria makes you a loonie.
> >
> > getting up tight about a vague possibility that someone
> > you have never
met
> > might possibly have had ancestors who lost children or
> > miscarried shows
that
> > you obviously haven't got anything worth while to
> > think about
> >
> > Jim Webster
>
> death of thousands of preventable causes are not worth
> thinking about?

sorry but how can you prevent the deaths of my ancestors who
have been in the church yard over a century

Jim Webster

[Nita]

<<<The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here
it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before
slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible
traces of muck. This means that these cattle have to be
trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a few
people injured trying to do this.>>>

Please excuse my ignorance, but what does being "trimmed out"
involve??? And what's a muck button?

I can only imagine this being quite painful to the cattle, and
am just curious exactly what is involved.

~Nita

[Torsten Br]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:39:30 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
<gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>The health and safety people are over zealous on the subject
>and they will win. It is amazing the differences in what
>different people have problems with. In California it fine to
>kill a horse and make dog food out of it but it is against
>the law to sell it if it is going to be used for human
>consumption. Sure has hurt the California horse sales and
>helped their neighbors. We are going to let the world beat us
>to stem cell research by placating the religious right. I
>expect we are loosing researchers to friendlier climates
>faster than we are gaining biotech people.
>
>The whole world is upside down on risk management. They let a
>few squawking crows side track the whole world.

Indeed they have side tracked USA to spend 70 billion
dollars so far this year, and currently running at 4 billion
more a month -- and wasted tens of thousands of lives, to
mitigate against a risk from weapons of mass destruction
that does not exist.

[Moosh:]]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 02:57:37 GMT,
bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce
Sinclair) wrote:

>In article <berhuc$64v$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
><Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>><cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
>>news:3F113281.94B61451@exchangenet.net...
>>> all those in your family that where born! A bunch of
>>> fetuses probably got the natural selection hatchet before
>>> having a chance of drinking milk, thanks to having you and
>>> your relatives as idiotic parents.
>>>
>>> Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in
>>> the listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny
>>> before is born!
>>
>>tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we
>>
>>you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the stress
>>of believing half the loonie scares that circulate than you
>>are from actually eating the food
>
>Well said ! ... the effects of stress from worrying about
>what you are eating have not, to my knowledge, been measured.
>
>You have to die of something ... it may as well be food :)

Tell that to the folks on the diabetes groups.

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:09:06 +0100, Oz
<acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> writes
>
>>I've not heard this. Farm populations in Australia have just
>>as high rates of asthma which is odd considering all the
>>speculation about pollution being the cause. I imagine any
>>population is more immune to what it is often exposed to.
>>And those who don't measure up just die out :)
>
>This is not what has been reported in the UK, from trials in
>many parts of the world.
>
>*RURAL* populations have the same level of asthma.

That's what I meant, but didn't say it well. This is the
theory that modern maternal cleanliness somehow screws up the
immune system so that it reacts to the goodies as well as the
baddies. The rate of allergic reactions to all sorts of things
is increasing.

>Families of livestock farmers have very significantly lower
>rates, as to people living in unsanitary environments
>(typically third world).

Yep, although it probably depends how intimately the children
of livestock farmers mix with the livestock

>There have been threads on this giving references, but I
>forget the precise names. You could try searching for "let
>them eat dirt", which was the first new scientist article
>that collated some of the (early) evidence, there is more
>certain later work. It will probably have been referenced
>somewhere in most of the threads.
>
>There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main
>mutually inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I
>always forget). One basically designed to hit bacteria, the
>other viruses and toxins. In the event of unnaturally low
>exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary living) the
>virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive
>and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both
>allergies and auto-immune diseases (both being very
>significantly higher in the first world).

But isn't the reaction to ANY foreign protein the thing
that is exacerbated when the immune system is not given
enough to do?

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

>Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of
>antibiotics in young farm animals (babies in effect) attacked
>by a serious virus. It is usual for them to recover from the
>virus, only to succumb to a bacterial disease (often scours).
>The switching over to viral attack, leaves their immature
>immune system open to attack by bacteria. This is so common
>as to be expected.

So what was the antibiotic given for?

[Moosh:]]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:07:21 -0700, "Nita"
<nita@copper.net> wrote:

><<<The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here
>it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before
>slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible
>traces of muck. This means that these cattle have to be
>trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a few
>people injured trying to do this.>>>
>
>Please excuse my ignorance, but what does being "trimmed out"
>involve???

Dunno exactly but I guess it means matted hair trimmed from
various areas. More painful to the trimmer than the trimmee, I
would guess.

>And what's a muck button?

Dingle berry, dag, lump of shit tangled in the hair.

>I can only imagine this being quite painful to the cattle,
>and am just curious exactly what is involved.

To the best of our knowledge, cattle in the abbatoir race have
no awareness of their fate.

[Jim Webste]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:hf4chvo5s98m6q483phbop6g5rfu13c8bf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:07:21 -0700, "Nita"
> <nita@copper.net> wrote:
>
> ><<<The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry.
> >Here it means
that
> >slaughter cattle have to be clean before slaughter and by
> >clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible traces of muck.
> >This means that these cattle have to be trimmed out while
> >still alive and there have been quite a few people injured
> >trying to do this.>>>
> >
> >Please excuse my ignorance, but what does being "trimmed
> >out" involve???
>
> Dunno exactly but I guess it means matted hair trimmed from
> various areas. More painful to the trimmer than the trimmee,
> I would guess.

yes, there have been people seriously injured in UK clipping
cattle underbellies out.

>
> >And what's a muck button?
>
> Dingle berry, dag, lump of shit tangled in the hair.

thats the one.

Jim Webster

[Oz]

Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> writes

>>Oz There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main
>>mutually inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I
>>always forget). One basically designed to hit bacteria, the
>>other viruses and toxins. In the event of unnaturally low
>>exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary living) the
>>virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive
>>and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both
>>allergies and auto-immune diseases (both being very
>>significantly higher in the first world).
>
>But isn't the reaction to ANY foreign protein the thing
>that is exacerbated when the immune system is not given
>enough to do?

No, not if you are continually exposed to significant
bacterial challenge as fighting them off inhibits the
viral pathway.

>Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates. After all
with two mutually inhibitory systems, like a swing one will
dominate (thus further inhibiting the other).

Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat
than viruses.

>>Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of
>>antibiotics in young farm animals (babies in effect)
>>attacked by a serious virus. It is usual for them to recover
>>from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial disease
>>(often scours). The switching over to viral attack, leaves
>>their immature immune system open to attack by bacteria.
>>This is so common as to be expected.
>
>So what was the antibiotic given for?

Indeed. Prophylactically.

--
Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably
fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will
be accepted.

[Oz]

Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> writes

>A solution is to have one's beef ground at the point of sale
>and use it soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a meat
>grinder and do it at home.

Interesting, and a good point.

When I was in berber country (northern sahara), eating at
local eateries, they always had a butcher on the side. You
bought the meat, them paid to have it cooked.

No refrigeration whatsoever.

I had ground meat, but it was ground in front of your eyes.
Oh, and well cooked (and delicious)!

--
Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably
fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will
be accepted.

[Jerry]

cor@exchangenet.net wrote in message
news:<3F112FA8.64F6EAD1@exchangenet.net>...
> Ron wrote:
> >
> > .
> >
> > The Bully's New Victim
> >
> > Monsanto has declared war on another little guy. Monsanto
> > is a big bully, but I've got a secret that will bring them
> > to their knees.
> >
> > Their timing was designed to create despair and suffering.
> > Their legal papers were filed on the Thursday before the
> > long July 4th holiday weekend. No time for attorneys to
> > review the complaint. A long Friday, Saturday, and Sunday
> > for Althea, Stanley, and William Bennett, third generation
> > owners of Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine.
> >
> > Their timing is also unfortunate for Monsanto's
> > stockholders. As biotechnology is being debated around the
> > world, as the European Community considers easing rules
> ...
>
>
> >
> > Monsanto has filed papers in federal court, arguing that
> > milk from cows treated with their genetically engineered
> > bovine growth hormone is no different from untreated milk.
> >
> > That is a lie, of course, and Monsanto knows it.
>
>
> The proof of that is that they hold a patent. a patented
> product is by definition something unique and special,
> otherwise it wouldn't be patentable. If the hormones have no
> effect on the cows, how are they producing more milk per
> unit of feed? I think Monsanto is planting the seeds for
> that patent to be revoked or to reinvent physiology for a
> brave new world of hormones with no effects.
>
>
As noted above, Monsanto contends that milk from rBST treated
cows is essentially that same as milk produced by non-teated
cows. That really isn't too hard to believe since cows produce
BST natuarally. If they didn't, they wouldn't produce milk.

Monsanto isn't claiming rBST has no effect on cows. Quite the
contrary. They have claimed over and over that use of their
synthetic BST will increase cows' metabloism, thus resulting
in increased per cow milk production and feed efficiency, all
other factors being equal.

From an environmental standpoint, that's a good thing. Same
amount of milk from fewer cows and less feed means less poop
and methane, fewer acres of crops required for to produce
feed, etc. Whether the use of rBST has contributed to an
oversupply of milk or the decline of the "family farm" is
fodder for another discussion thread.

There really is no "planting the seeds for that patent to be
revoked or to reinvent physiology for a brave new world of
hormones with no effects.

[Hua Kul]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:<joivgv8n0dqrvd4np3oq5n75fi1kdqa14f@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from
> >> just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :)
> >
> >have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing
> >it has to go through I haven't any worries.
>
> That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to want
> to dispense with all of that new fangled testing and stuff.

You just pulled that outta yer arse, dear. The Amish have no
problem with testing. They simply don't adopt certain
technologies for themselves, such as pasteurizing THEIR OWN
milk, owning THEIR OWN telephones, and DRIVING motorized
vehicles. They will RIDE in motorized vehicles if someone else
is driving. This is their lifestyle and they're free to pursue
it, just as I should be free to purchase and drink their milk.
They understand technology but have made certain decisions not
to adopt some of it. For instance, they use midwives for
childbirth, but their midwives use drugs as necessary during
deliveries. (One was recently jailed for contempt for not
disclosing her source of pitocin and methergine, two
completely safe drugs which she used to save the life of a
hemorrhaging mother until the mom could reach a hospital.)
Their lifestyls has often cost them dearly, as when they are
killed or severely injured when one of their buggies is hit by
a car or truck.

>
> >> >It is probable that urban people with their lower level
> >> >of immunity to
> many
> >> >things
> >>
> >> Where do you get this from?
> >
> >just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm
> >populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things
>
> I've not heard this.

Dictionary of Moosh: "I've not heard this" = "This must
be false."

> >> >Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they
> >> >were even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at
> >> >which point it was pointed out that they couldn't
> >> >because the French make and sell vast quantities of
> >> >unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a
> >> >health risk to ban the import and no one can come up
> >> >with enough evidence

Because the Amish can't sell their milk for drinking they make
cheeses out of it. Excellent stuff.

On the subject of immunity, here is a link indicating there
are delicate immune-boosting proteins in raw milk that may be
destroyed during the pasteurization process. It's a commercial
site and I can't vouch for it but the research they quote
could indicate a reason why those who drink raw milk seem to
have greater immunity to common pathogens.

======================================================================

"Fresh, raw milk includes the group of proteins that
remain soluble in "milk serum." These proteins can be
preserved in their native form if extracted carefully from
their natural source.

"In 1981 it was discovered that normal mice fed a milk serum
protein concentrate (specially prepared under mild
nondenaturing conditions) exhibited a marked increase in the
humoral immune response to a T helper cell-dependent antigen
(1). In the following years, numerous experiments confirmed
the consistency of this phenomenon (2-10)."

http://www.cell-defense.com/d.cgi/48483/book.html
=======================================================================

--Hua Kul

huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

[Hua Kul]

Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<hKxn6rRC59D$Ewpc@btopenworld.com>...
>
> There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main
> mutually inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I
> always forget). One basically designed to hit bacteria, the
> other viruses and toxins. In the event of unnaturally low
> exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary living) the
> virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive
> and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both
> allergies and auto-immune diseases (both being very
> significantly higher in the first world).
>
This is very interesting. It might explain the findings in
autopsies of SARS victims. Very little viral material is found
in their brains but strong indications of an extremely robust
immune response. Some are starting to think that it is not the
SARS virus which kills but this inappropiate immune response.

--Hua Kul

huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

[Hua Kul]

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<beb3lc$fbc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here
> it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before
> slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no visible
> traces of muck. This means that these cattle have to be
> trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a
> few people injured trying to do this.
>
The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the typical
consumer. Many people believe that the meat is somehow
internally infected with e.coli. But the bacterium exists in
the steer's digestive system and only contacts the meat
through unhygenic processes during slaughter. So when I buy a
roast the only place possibly contaminated would be the
surface, and that can be washed off or will be killed in the
cooking. The problem arises when commercial butchers pool and
grind large quantities of beef into hamburger several days
before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and giving
it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I
did, purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

--Hua Kul

huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

[James Curt]

> The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the
> typical consumer. Many people believe that the meat is
> somehow internally infected with e.coli. But the bacterium
> exists in the steer's digestive system and only contacts the
> meat through unhygenic processes during slaughter. So when I
> buy a roast the only place possibly contaminated would be
> the surface, and that can be washed off or will be killed in
> the cooking. The problem arises when commercial butchers
> pool and grind large quantities of beef into hamburger
> several days before it is ever used, distributing the
> bacterium and giving it a window to proliferate. A solution
> is to have one's beef ground at the point of sale and use it
> soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a meat grinder and do
> it at home.
>
> --Hua Kul
>
> huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

I'm sure you feel much better about yourself now that you have
typified the US consumer as ignorant. Your understanding of
steer guts is commendable also.

The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food
quality, purity and nutritional value as any in modern nations
today. With the properly written and implemented laws we have
today regulating food products there is little need for the
person purchasing the family meal to be knowledgeable about
any particular health shortcomings of their choices.

My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the most
exacting needs and wants of consumers. This includes the
demand for the best health safeguards we have available today.

In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and the
vast majority of the retail consumers are a very discerning
and critical lot. The continual barrage of information and
disinformation displayed for public benefit has the buying
populace taking even more notice of what is in/on and part of
a given product. This is in large part due to the ambiguous
claims of the organic growers regarding pesticides, herbicides
and fertilizers.

The organic faction has quite a following until tests show
what is really in the produce. One of our larger retail food
chains in the area has ceased selling organic labeled produce
because of non-conformance to advertised standards. The GM
issue has even more folks taking notice and becoming more
aware of what they put into the shopping cart.

The US consumer ignorant??

They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use products
whose producers deliberately circumvent the laws and
regulations on which we rely to insure the food we consume is
wholesome.

James Curts

[Jim Webste]

"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:7vaxDZF1vtF$EwZM@btopenworld.com...
> Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> writes
>
> >A solution is to have one's beef ground at the point of
> >sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a meat
> >grinder and do it at home.
>
> Interesting, and a good point.

Yes, and one worth making. We have minced beef from our own
bullock, but it is minced by our butcher and I then either
make burgers or bag the mince into 1lb packs before sticking
it straight into the freezer. So he minces the animal at 3pm
and by 8pm it is in the freezer.

Jim Webster

[R.L. McCar]

James Curts wrote:
>
> > The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the
> > typical consumer. Many people believe that the meat is
> > somehow internally infected with e.coli. But the bacterium
> > exists in the steer's digestive system and only contacts
> > the meat through unhygenic processes during slaughter. So
> > when I buy a roast the only place possibly contaminated
> > would be the surface, and that can be washed off or will
> > be killed in the cooking. The problem arises when
> > commercial butchers pool and grind large quantities of
> > beef into hamburger several days before it is ever used,
> > distributing the bacterium and giving it a window to
> > proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef ground at
> > the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
> > purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.
> >
> > --Hua Kul
> >
> > huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com
>
> I'm sure you feel much better about yourself now that you
> have typified the US consumer as ignorant. Your
> understanding of steer guts is commendable also.
>
> The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food
> quality, purity and nutritional value as any in modern
> nations today. With the properly written and implemented
> laws we have today regulating food products there is little
> need for the person purchasing the family meal to be
> knowledgeable about any particular health shortcomings of
> their choices.
>
> My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the
> most exacting needs and wants of consumers. This includes
> the demand for the best health safeguards we have
> available today.
>
> In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and the
> vast majority of the retail consumers are a very discerning
> and critical lot. The continual barrage of information and
> disinformation displayed for public benefit has the buying
> populace taking even more notice of what is in/on and part
> of a given product. This is in large part due to the
> ambiguous claims of the organic growers regarding
> pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
>
> The organic faction has quite a following until tests show
> what is really in the produce. One of our larger retail food
> chains in the area has ceased selling organic labeled
> produce because of non-conformance to advertised standards.
> The GM issue has even more folks taking notice and becoming
> more aware of what they put into the shopping cart.
>
> The US consumer ignorant??
>
> They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use products
> whose producers deliberately circumvent the laws and
> regulations on which we rely to insure the food we consume
> is wholesome.
>
> James Curts

James..good shot! The folks who insist on organic foods, good
or bad, are still at risk from E-coli because MIGRANT workers
still pich the food-stuffs and still go to the bathroom in the
field outhouses without washroom facilities. their HANDS still
are usually infected and E-coli STILL can be a problem! SOME
moron recently said that "organic foods need NOT be
scrubbed"..c'mon GymBob..get your head out of your E-coli
bearing hole!

As fo cows milk..it WOULD be SAFE if only pasteurized...but
HOMOGENIZATION makaes it "poisoness" as the deadly , but huge
"X-0" enzyme in COW's milk is responsible for millions of
folks havng LESIONS in their hearts and other organs.
Normally, it is so huge that it passes on thru the system
without harm...however when "micronized" by
homogenization...it becomes a killer, espcially to "WIC"
confronted babies. It CAN be MADE SAFE simply by bringing it
up to a simmer and then cooling over-night to re-coagulate the
enzyme. It floats to the top as an UGLY "pancake" and may be
tossed or filtered out! The milk is THEN very sweet and stays
fresh much longer and is SAFE as well for all users. "Simple
answers for a deadly problem" . B-0b1

[James Curt]

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bf76ei$oje$3@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:7vaxDZF1vtF$EwZM@btopenworld.com...
> > Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> writes
> >
> > >A solution is to have one's beef ground at the point of
> > >sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a
> > >meat grinder and do it at home.
> >
> > Interesting, and a good point.
>
> Yes, and one worth making. We have minced beef from our own
> bullock, but
it
> is minced by our butcher and I then either make burgers or
> bag the mince into 1lb packs before sticking it straight
> into the freezer. So he minces the animal at 3pm and by 8pm
> it is in the freezer.
>
> Jim Webster
>

This ground burger issue is one I have taken up with various
shops and especially in the retail chain store arena. This is
generally precipitated by taking questionable burger back to
the meat market and confronting them with bad smelling
(rotting) meat with the date on the package. This is a high
volume meat product and yet is treated with much disdain by
those producing it. The time some of it is left uncooled is
critical and often old burger is mixed in with new.

We too, buy from a source which grinds and packages right
before us and we do well. It is straight from the cooler to
grinder and into a package and in minutes is in our
cooler/freezer.

A chain of buffet/dinner establishments in the Portland and
Seattle area were put out of business by recurring e-coli
outbreaks which were traced to their food. I believe it was in
the milk and meat products. I always suspected a disgruntled
employee contributed to the issue but maybe just happenstance.

James Curts

[R.L. McCar]

Jim Webster wrote:
>
> "Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:7vaxDZF1vtF$EwZM@btopenworld.com...
> > Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> writes
> >
> > >A solution is to have one's beef ground at the point of
> > >sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a
> > >meat grinder and do it at home.
> >
> > Interesting, and a good point.
>
> Yes, and one worth making. We have minced beef from our own
> bullock, but it is minced by our butcher and I then either
> make burgers or bag the mince into 1lb packs before sticking
> it straight into the freezer. So he minces the animal at 3pm
> and by 8pm it is in the freezer.
>
> Jim Webster

Jim my comments in the previous post...Milk CAN BE deadly if
one BUYS the LIES!! B-0b1

[R.L. McCar]

James Curts wrote:
>
> "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bf76ei$oje$3@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:7vaxDZF1vtF$EwZM@btopenworld.com...
> > > Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> writes
> > >
> > > >A solution is to have one's beef ground at the point of
> > > >sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a
> > > >meat grinder and do it at home.
> > >
> > > Interesting, and a good point.
> >
> > Yes, and one worth making. We have minced beef from our
> > own bullock, but
> it
> > is minced by our butcher and I then either make burgers or
> > bag the mince into 1lb packs before sticking it straight
> > into the freezer. So he minces the animal at 3pm and by
> > 8pm it is in the freezer.
> >
> > Jim Webster
> >
>
> This ground burger issue is one I have taken up with various
> shops and especially in the retail chain store arena. This
> is generally precipitated by taking questionable burger back
> to the meat market and confronting them with bad smelling
> (rotting) meat with the date on the package. This is a high
> volume meat product and yet is treated with much disdain by
> those producing it. The time some of it is left uncooled is
> critical and often old burger is mixed in with new.
>
> We too, buy from a source which grinds and packages right
> before us and we do well. It is straight from the cooler to
> grinder and into a package and in minutes is in our
> cooler/freezer.
>
> A chain of buffet/dinner establishments in the Portland and
> Seattle area were put out of business by recurring e-coli
> outbreaks which were traced to their food. I believe it was
> in the milk and meat products. I always suspected a
> disgruntled employee contributed to the issue but maybe just
> happenstance.
>
> James Curts

> Try this on for size: Meat is aged on the avergae of 19
> days nationwide if sold to stores. In their lockers a few
> more day pass by before cut and wrapped for sale. When it
> stands in the sales dispay and does NOT sell..then it
> ismade into huge rolls of "hamburger" with fat added to
> allegedly "preserve" it better
up to 35% worth. In some stores the STENCH is enough to senf
most folks "hurling"!
> And one wonders WHY we have so much food poisoning in our
> country! Yucko..B-0b1 u

[James Curt]

"R.L. McCarty" <sos@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:3F17268A.7F0F9377@grandecom.net...

SNIP

> > Try this on for size: Meat is aged on the avergae of 19
> > days nationwide
if sold to stores. In their lockers a few more day pass by
before cut and wrapped for sale. When it stands in the sales
dispay and does NOT sell..then it ismade into huge rolls of
"hamburger" with fat added to allegedly "preserve" it better
> up to 35% worth. In some stores the STENCH is enough to senf
> most folks "hurling"!
> > And one wonders WHY we have so much food poisoning in our
> > country!
Yucko..B-0b1 u

I am well familiar with the aging process and the need for it.
While still on the ranch we raised our own beef, and about
everything else raisable, and oversaw the care of if from
slaughter to dinner plate.

Much of what you see and experience in the meat markets
today is carelessness and attitude on the part of the
employees. Store owners are knowledgeable enough to know the
product can almost always be traced back to them if a
customer or the law cares to.

Often, as in the case of mixing the old meat with the new, the
amount of old meat actually used is of minimal concern and is
only a dumb stunt on the part of an employee.

Again, laws and regulations protect the consumer if they
are enforced.

Things could be a bit of a hassle before we had electricity
and depended on ice blocks and cooler cabinets.

Another significant source of food poisoning is still home
canning projects which go awry. Any low acid food is
susceptible to and can promote the growth of Botulism.

James Curts

[R.L. McCar]

Hua Kul wrote:
>
> "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<beb3lc$fbc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> > The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here
> > it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before
> > slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no
> > visible traces of muck. This means that these cattle have
> > to be trimmed out while still alive and there have been
> > quite a few people injured trying to do this.
> >
> The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the
> typical consumer. Many people believe that the meat is
> somehow internally infected with e.coli. But the bacterium
> exists in the steer's digestive system and only contacts the
> meat through unhygenic processes during slaughter. So when I
> buy a roast the only place possibly contaminated would be
> the surface, and that can be washed off or will be killed in
> the cooking. The problem arises when commercial butchers
> pool and grind large quantities of beef into hamburger
> several days before it is ever used, distributing the
> bacterium and giving it a window to proliferate. A solution
> is to have one's beef ground at the point of sale and use it
> soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a meat grinder and do
> it at home.
>
> --Hua Kul
>
> huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

>>>Buy grinder..buy good chuck roasts and have at
>>>it...controlled fat
is the result and better meat as well. B-0b1

[James Curt]

"R.L. McCarty" <sos@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:3F172A04.3AC803DC@grandecom.net...
>

SNIP

>
> James..good shot! The folks who insist on organic foods,
> good or bad, are still at risk from E-coli because MIGRANT
> workers still pich the food-stuffs and still go to the
> bathroom in the field outhouses without washroom facilities.
> their HANDS still are usually infected and E-coli STILL can
> be a problem! SOME moron recently said that "organic foods
> need NOT be scrubbed"..c'mon GymBob..get your head out of
> your E-coli bearing hole!
>
> As fo cows milk..it WOULD be SAFE if only pasteurized...but
> HOMOGENIZATION makaes it "poisoness" as the deadly , but
> huge "X-0" enzyme in COW's milk is responsible for millions
> of folks havng LESIONS in their hearts and other organs.
> Normally, it is so huge that it passes on thru the system
> without harm...however when "micronized" by
> homogenization...it becomes a killer, espcially to "WIC"
> confronted babies. It CAN be MADE SAFE simply by bringing it
> up to a simmer and then cooling over-night to re-coagulate
> the enzyme. It floats to the top as an UGLY "pancake" and
> may be tossed or filtered out! The milk is THEN very sweet
> and stays fresh much longer and is SAFE as well for all
> users. "Simple answers for a deadly problem" . B-0b1

The "organic" crowd is always an advertising adversary for me.
My produce is raised hydroponically with zero pesticides,
etc., etc.. The organic growers prey on an unsuspecting market
segment which is largely the yuppie crowd which thinks they
can live forever.

While the e-coli type of situations are not of such import
to us the filthy habits of others is, including their
unrestricted use of chemical sprays, etc.in these 2-1/2 and
3rd world places. NAFTA with all the wisdom behind it
allows these people to ship products, including cattle,
almost unrestrictedly into the US and compete with
legitimate growers.

The Canadian folks benefit from the NAFTA arrangement also
but do maintain just as high of standards as the US. I have
to say that as although I live in the US my greenhouse
interests are in Canada. NAFTA cuts both ways when the
exchange rate is right.

The organic lobby has glibly and ably sidestepped any serious
set of growing rules and guidelines to which they can be held
accountable. At this time it is merely a catch phrase with
very little to recommend it.

James Curts

[Jim Webste]

"R.L. McCarty" <sos@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:3F172A04.3AC803DC@grandecom.net...
> James Curts wrote: E-coli bearing hole!
>
> As fo cows milk..it WOULD be SAFE if only pasteurized...but
> HOMOGENIZATION makaes it "poisoness" as the deadly , but
> huge "X-0" enzyme in COW's milk is responsible for millions
> of folks havng LESIONS in their hearts and other organs.
> Normally, it is so huge that it passes on thru the system
> without harm...however when "micronized" by
> homogenization...it becomes a killer, espcially to "WIC"
> confronted babies. It CAN be MADE SAFE simply by bringing it
> up to a simmer and then cooling over-night to re-coagulate
> the enzyme. It floats to the top as an UGLY "pancake" and
> may be tossed or filtered out! The milk is THEN very sweet
> and stays fresh much longer and is SAFE as well for all
> users. "Simple answers for a deadly problem" . B-0b1

that pancake is protein, proteins are broken down when
absorbed through the intestine.

Jim Webster

[Jim Webste]

"R.L. McCarty" <sos@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:3F172A40.8C7A8A29@grandecom.net...
> Jim Webster wrote:
> >
> > "Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:7vaxDZF1vtF$EwZM@btopenworld.com...
> > > Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> writes
> > >
> > > >A solution is to have one's beef ground at the point of
> > > >sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did, purchase a
> > > >meat grinder and do it at home.
> > >
> > > Interesting, and a good point.
> >
> > Yes, and one worth making. We have minced beef from our
> > own bullock, but
it
> > is minced by our butcher and I then either make burgers or
> > bag the mince into 1lb packs before sticking it straight
> > into the freezer. So he
minces
> > the animal at 3pm and by 8pm it is in the freezer.
> >
> > Jim Webster
>
> Jim my comments in the previous post...Milk CAN BE deadly
> if one BUYS the LIES!! B-0b1

In the UK raw milk and meat aren't the big problem any more
when you look at actual casualties, main problem is probably
poor hygiene at home and catering,

Jim Webster

[Hua Kul]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vcFRa.83470$N7.11293@sccrnsc03>...
> > The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the
> > typical consumer. Many people believe that the meat is
> > somehow internally infected with e.coli. But the bacterium
> > exists in the steer's digestive system and only contacts
> > the meat through unhygenic processes during slaughter. So
> > when I buy a roast the only place possibly contaminated
> > would be the surface, and that can be washed off or will
> > be killed in the cooking. The problem arises when
> > commercial butchers pool and grind large quantities of
> > beef into hamburger several days before it is ever used,
> > distributing the bacterium and giving it a window to
> > proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef ground at
> > the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
> > purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.
> >
> > --Hua Kul
> >
> > huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com
>
> I'm sure you feel much better about yourself

How is it possible that you're "sure" of this? You don't know
anything about me, and you've made no effort to contact me.

> now that you have typified the US consumer as ignorant.

Ignorance does not imply indifference, stupidity, or lack of
intelligence.

> Your understanding of steer guts is commendable also.

The extremely simple concept of e. coli. not being present
internally in uncut meat is NOT common knowledge among many
consumers with whom I have discussed the issue. I draw my
conclusions from my admittedly small (compared to national
population) sample.

> The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food
> quality, purity and nutritional value as any in modern
> nations today.

Then why do I get so many blank stares when I discuss the FFA
content of animal fats or vegatable oils? The vast majority of
folks simply DON'T know how dangerous to their health a high
omega6:omega3 ratio
is. They don't know that most farm raised fish are fed on a
grain based diet and therefore they are not getting the
health benefit claimed for fish oil intake. They don't
understand the safety and need for some saturated fats in
their diets. They don't understand that dietary
cholesterol intake doesn't much influence their serum
cholesterol levels. The don't understand the HUGE
increase in vitamins in meat from grass fed livestock
versus grain fed. They have no clue how dangerous
fructose is to our health, especially to those who have a
genetic deficiency that inhibits their production of
Insulin Receptor Substrate-1. I could go on and on.

> With the properly written and implemented laws we have today
> regulating food products there is little need for the person
> purchasing the family meal to be knowledgeable about any
> particular health shortcomings of their choices.

This is one of the most elitest things you have yet said.
First you say that the typical consumer is not ignorant, then
you say there is no need for him to be educated. If you are
putting your trust in "Big Brother" your walking on a
dangerous path. One of the most dangerous foods on the market,
man made trans fats, are not even required by the government
to be listed on food product labels.

> My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the
> most exacting needs and wants of consumers. This includes
> the demand for the best health safeguards we have
> available today.
>
> In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and the
> vast majority of the retail consumers are a very discerning
> and critical lot. The continual barrage of information and
> disinformation displayed for public benefit has the buying
> populace taking even more notice of what is in/on and part
> of a given product. This is in large part due to the
> ambiguous claims of the organic growers regarding
> pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

I don't believe that organic always means better, but I know
that environmental poisons can damage health, such as the
increase in breast cancer among women who work around
pesticides. I don't believe basic fertilizers are dangerous,
but I also know that geographic location has much more to do
with nutritional quality of foods than any fertilizers we
might use. We apply three elements, but many other nutrients,
such as selenium, are more deficient in some soils than
others. If there were a fertilizer that would increase all the
beneficiel but lacking nutrients I would be in favor of
applying that to anything that grows. But only if the grower
wants to use it. If people want to purchase "organic" produce
it shouldn't be kept off the market. One of the outbreaks of
e. coli. that got national attention was in bottled apple
juice. This could be eliminated if people would press their
own juices.

> The organic faction has quite a following until tests show
> what is really in the produce. One of our larger retail food
> chains in the area has ceased selling organic labeled
> produce because of non-conformance to advertised standards.
> The GM issue has even more folks taking notice and becoming
> more aware of what they put into the shopping cart.

Starlink GM corn is now in about 70% of all corn products in
the US, but I'll bet you a couple of doughnuts that most
people don't know this.

> The US consumer ignorant??
>
> They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use products
> whose producers deliberately circumvent the laws and
> regulations on which we rely to insure the food we consume
> is wholesome.

Here's one small example of how the food industries in general
couldn't care less about consumer health if it affects their
bottom lines. It has been know for a long time that man made
trans fats are quite dangerous for our health, yet bakery
producers keep using it because it provides a good product
texture that doesn't get soggy, and it's cheap. If they wanted
to do the best for us they would switch to coconut or palm
oils, which also stay hard at room temperature. It was only
lies from the grain oil industry that convinced US consumers
that the tropical oils are bad for us. In reality they're much
more healthy than vegetable oil-based trans fats.

--Hua Kul

huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

[James Curt]

"Hua Kul" <gmp@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:3da4c6e5.0307180920.5afe4509@posting.google.com...
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vcFRa.83470$N7.11293@sccrnsc03>...
> > > The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the
> > > typical consumer. Many people believe that the meat is
> > > somehow internally infected with e.coli. But the
> > > bacterium exists in the steer's digestive system and
> > > only contacts the meat through unhygenic processes
> > > during slaughter. So when I buy a roast the only place
> > > possibly contaminated would be the surface, and that can
> > > be washed off or will be killed in the cooking. The
> > > problem arises when commercial butchers pool and grind
> > > large quantities of beef into hamburger several days
> > > before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and
> > > giving it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have
> > > one's beef ground at the point of sale and use it soon
> > > after. Or do as I did, purchase a meat grinder and do it
> > > at home.
> > >
> > > --Hua Kul
> > >
> > > huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com
> >
> > I'm sure you feel much better about yourself
>
> How is it possible that you're "sure" of this? You don't
> know anything about me, and you've made no effort to
> contact me.
>
> > now that you have typified the US consumer as ignorant.
>
> Ignorance does not imply indifference, stupidity, or lack of
> intelligence.
>
> > Your understanding of steer guts is commendable also.
>
> The extremely simple concept of e. coli. not being present
> internally in uncut meat is NOT common knowledge among many
> consumers with whom I have discussed the issue. I draw my
> conclusions from my admittedly small (compared to national
> population) sample.
>
> > The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food
> > quality, purity
and
> > nutritional value as any in modern nations today.
>
> Then why do I get so many blank stares when I discuss the
> FFA content of animal fats or vegatable oils? The vast
> majority of folks simply DON'T know how dangerous to their
> health a high omega6:omega3 ratio
> is. They don't know that most farm raised fish are fed on a
> grain based diet and therefore they are not getting the
> health benefit claimed for fish oil intake. They don't
> understand the safety and need for some saturated fats
> in their diets. They don't understand that dietary
> cholesterol intake doesn't much influence their serum
> cholesterol levels. The don't understand the HUGE
> increase in vitamins in meat from grass fed livestock
> versus grain fed. They have no clue how dangerous
> fructose is to our health, especially to those who have
> a genetic deficiency that inhibits their production of
> Insulin Receptor Substrate-1. I could go on and on.
>
> > With the properly written and implemented laws we have
> > today regulating
food
> > products there is little need for the person purchasing
> > the family meal
to
> > be knowledgeable about any particular health shortcomings
> > of their
choices.
>
> This is one of the most elitest things you have yet said.
> First you say that the typical consumer is not ignorant,
> then you say there is no need for him to be educated. If you
> are putting your trust in "Big Brother" your walking on a
> dangerous path. One of the most dangerous foods on the
> market, man made trans fats, are not even required by the
> government to be listed on food product labels.
>
> > My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the most
> > exacting
needs
> > and wants of consumers. This includes the demand for the
> > best health safeguards we have available today.
> >
> > In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and
> > the vast
majority of
> > the retail consumers are a very discerning and critical
> > lot. The
continual
> > barrage of information and disinformation displayed for
> > public benefit
has
> > the buying populace taking even more notice of what is
> > in/on and part of
a
> > given product. This is in large part due to the ambiguous
> > claims of the organic growers regarding pesticides,
> > herbicides and fertilizers.
>
> I don't believe that organic always means better, but I know
> that environmental poisons can damage health, such as the
> increase in breast cancer among women who work around
> pesticides. I don't believe basic fertilizers are dangerous,
> but I also know that geographic location has much more to do
> with nutritional quality of foods than any fertilizers we
> might use. We apply three elements, but many other
> nutrients, such as selenium, are more deficient in some
> soils than others. If there were a fertilizer that would
> increase all the beneficiel but lacking nutrients I would be
> in favor of applying that to anything that grows. But only
> if the grower wants to use it. If people want to purchase
> "organic" produce it shouldn't be kept off the market. One
> of the outbreaks of e. coli. that got national attention was
> in bottled apple juice. This could be eliminated if people
> would press their own juices.
>
> > The organic faction has quite a following until tests show
> > what is
really in
> > the produce. One of our larger retail food chains in the
> > area has ceased selling organic labeled produce because of
> > non-conformance to advertised standards. The GM issue has
> > even more folks taking notice and becoming
more
> > aware of what they put into the shopping cart.
>
> Starlink GM corn is now in about 70% of all corn products in
> the US, but I'll bet you a couple of doughnuts that most
> people don't know this.
>
> > The US consumer ignorant??
> >
> > They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use
> > products whose
producers
> > deliberately circumvent the laws and regulations on which
> > we rely to
insure
> > the food we consume is wholesome.
>
> Here's one small example of how the food industries in
> general couldn't care less about consumer health if it
> affects their bottom lines. It has been know for a long time
> that man made trans fats are quite dangerous for our health,
> yet bakery producers keep using it because it provides a
> good product texture that doesn't get soggy, and it's cheap.
> If they wanted to do the best for us they would switch to
> coconut or palm oils, which also stay hard at room
> temperature. It was only lies from the grain oil industry
> that convinced US consumers that the tropical oils are bad
> for us. In reality they're much more healthy than vegetable
> oil-based trans fats.
>
> --Hua Kul
>
> huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

Uh, why, yes. But in spite of your wide range of reading
material which most of us are also cognizant of you will
continue to receive the "blank stares" when introducing them
into a conversation in order to back up a claim some segment
of a populace is ignorant.

This is further compounded when standing for a group which
openly defies common sense food safety and health
considerations.

I live in the Portland Oregon area and more specifically in
the midst of the electronics development facilities to the
West of Portland. Due to the highly diverse cultures
represented in the populace and the considerably higher than
average personal incomes in this particular location there are
many many market places.

As my interests lie with food production, quality and the
marketing of the same, I will on occasion take part of a
weekend and watch the food purchasing process in full swing.
While watching a person or family make selections there are
some obvious criteria used in the selection of items for the
cart. Advertising, flavor, packaging, portions, brand name,
appearance, preparation requirements, personal preference,
advice/recommendations from friends/family/sales person, past
experiences with a product, and others enter into the
selection process. Ignorance of the consumer is not one of the
criteria used for selection of a food product.

Twenty short miles to the West of this area are the
agricultural communities which consist of a totally different
culture. The Mexican populace whose wages are approximately
20-25% of the folks described in the above paragraph and
purchase a quite different variety of food products display
the identical shopping criteria and again, ignorance is not
one of them.

The Mexican folks, in general, have probably read nothing of
the topics we are discussing. However, they do display the
same common sense, if not significantly influenced by
financial shortcomings, shown by their educated and relatively
wealthy counterparts from other parts of he world.

Perhaps you could take a couple of hours from your busy and
productive life and visit a market place. While there pose the
question to a diligent consumer "Did your ignorance enter into
your deciding to choose that product?"

Lasting Lessons can be obtained in various manners.

James Curts

[Jim Webste]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...

> Perhaps you could take a couple of hours from your busy and
> productive
life
> and visit a market place. While there pose the question to a
> diligent consumer "Did your ignorance enter into your
> deciding to choose that product?"
>
> Lasting Lessons can be obtained in various manners.

not only that, but can we know in advance which market then we
get to sell tickets

Jim Webster

>
> James Curts

[Oz]

Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> writes

>I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks.
>How do you explain the marked increase in autoimmune diseases
>lately? As well as food allergies and asthma like allergies?

That was explained (although more info is required for proof)
by the un- naturally hygienic living conditions of the first
world (and a lesser extent the second).

>>>Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.
>>
>>Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.
>
>I wonder why.

probably because the systems evolved in a situation where
bacteria dominate.

>>Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat than
>>viruses.
>
>It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.

I'm not sure 'lifestyle' is appropriate a word for
neanderthals.

Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that man
lived in large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with good
communication between groups. I would thus imagine that new
viral attacks were very rare (and probably pretty
devastating). Typically the local endemic viruses would have
all been encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge,
though, would continue throughout life.

>>>>Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of
>>>>antibiotics in young farm animals (babies in effect)
>>>>attacked by a serious virus. It is usual for them to
>>>>recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial
>>>>disease (often scours). The switching over to viral
>>>>attack, leaves their immature immune system open to attack
>>>>by bacteria. This is so common as to be expected.
>>>
>>>So what was the antibiotic given for?
>>
>>Indeed. Prophylactically.
>
>Not a good practice routinely, I would have thought.

Indeed.

>But at least one with relevant sensitivities would be better,
>if the bacterial infection is routinely expected.

This is typically the case in young animals with clinical
viral disease.

--
Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably
fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will
be accepted.

[Moosh:]]

On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:

>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>news:<joivgv8n0dqrvd4np3oq5n75fi1kdqa14f@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from
>> >> just anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not :)
>> >
>> >have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the
>> >testing it has to go through I haven't any worries.
>>
>> That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to
>> want to dispense with all of that new fangled testing
>> and stuff.
>
>You just pulled that outta yer arse, dear.

No it's a logical assumption naturally deriving from their
(and other religious fundamentalists') irrational rejection of
anything modern.

>The Amish have no problem with testing. They simply don't
>adopt certain technologies for themselves, such as
>pasteurizing THEIR OWN milk, owning THEIR OWN telephones, and
>DRIVING motorized vehicles.

As I said irrational to the end.

>They will RIDE in motorized vehicles if someone else is
>driving.

Yep. Irratiopnal

>This is their lifestyle and they're free to pursue it, just
>as I should be free to purchase and drink their milk.

And if you sign a waiver that you won't expect the state to
support you and yours should you come to grief, then perhaps
you can do any Goddamn silly thing you want.

>They understand technology but have made certain decisions
>not to adopt some of it.

Irrational still.

>For instance, they use midwives for childbirth, but their
>midwives use drugs as necessary during deliveries.

Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their
blood transfusion ban, ferinstance.

>(One was recently jailed for contempt for not disclosing her
>source of pitocin and methergine, two completely safe drugs
>which she used to save the life of a hemorrhaging mother
>until the mom could reach a hospital.) Their lifestyls has
>often cost them dearly, as when they are killed or severely
>injured when one of their buggies is hit by a car or truck.

Illogical to the end, as I said.

>> >> >It is probable that urban people with their lower level
>> >> >of immunity to
>> many
>> >> >things
>> >>
>> >> Where do you get this from?
>> >
>> >just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm
>> >populations tend to have higher immunity to certain things
>>
>> I've not heard this.
>
>Dictionary of Moosh: "I've not heard this" = "This must
>be false."

You read more into my words than are there. I wonder why
this is :)

>> >> >Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they
>> >> >were even talking about banning unpasturised cheese, at
>> >> >which point it was pointed out that they couldn't
>> >> >because the French make and sell vast quantities of
>> >> >unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a
>> >> >health risk to ban the import and no one can come up
>> >> >with enough evidence
>
>Because the Amish can't sell their milk for drinking they
>make cheeses out of it. Excellent stuff.

Why won't they pasteurise it? Do they reject other Pasteur
discoveries?

>On the subject of immunity, here is a link indicating there
>are delicate immune-boosting proteins in raw milk that may be
>destroyed during the pasteurization process. It's a
>commercial site and I can't vouch for it but the research
>they quote could indicate a reason why those who drink raw
>milk seem to have greater immunity to common pathogens.

You mean infants? Adullts don't need infant food. Though it is
a good source of nutrition. You are not pretending that the
Amish avoid pasteurisation because of the immune fractions in
raw infants food?

[Moosh:]]

On 17 Jul 2003 08:51:50 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:

>"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<beb3lc$fbc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>
>> The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here
>> it means that slaughter cattle have to be clean before
>> slaughter and by clean I mean no muck buttons and no
>> visible traces of muck. This means that these cattle have
>> to be trimmed out while still alive and there have been
>> quite a few people injured trying to do this.
>>
>The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the typical
>consumer. Many people believe that the meat is somehow
>internally infected with e.coli. But the bacterium exists in
>the steer's digestive system and only contacts the meat
>through unhygenic processes during slaughter. So when I buy a
>roast the only place possibly contaminated would be the
>surface, and that can be washed off or will be killed in the
>cooking. The problem arises when commercial butchers pool and
>grind large quantities of beef into hamburger several days
>before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and giving
>it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef
>ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I
>did, purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

Or even cook it thoroughly. I boil it, and lift off the
congealed fat on cooling, then use the fat free meat in a stew
or broth or even shepherds' pie or spag bol.

[Jim Webste]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:v3ghhv0hcq6f017l96de1n2r15b2jv4acj@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:
> > Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and
> > their blood
> transfusion ban, ferinstance.
>

given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and
possibly nvCJD from blood transfusions, this isn't all that
silly. The practice of giving some of your own blood a couple
of weeks prior to the operation sounds very sensible

Jim Webster

[Moosh:]]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:02:23 +0100, Oz
<acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> writes
>
>>>Oz There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main
>>>mutually inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I
>>>always forget). One basically designed to hit bacteria, the
>>>other viruses and toxins. In the event of unnaturally low
>>>exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary living) the
>>>virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive
>>>and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both
>>>allergies and auto-immune diseases (both being very
>>>significantly higher in the first world).
>>
>>But isn't the reaction to ANY foreign protein the thing
>>that is exacerbated when the immune system is not given
>>enough to do?
>
>No, not if you are continually exposed to significant
>bacterial challenge as fighting them off inhibits the
>viral pathway.

I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks.
How do you explain the marked increase in autoimmune diseases
lately? As well as food allergies and asthma like allergies?

>>Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.
>
>Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

>After all with two mutually inhibitory systems, like a swing
>one will dominate (thus further inhibiting the other).

I didn't realise they were so. Thanks again :)

>Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat
>than viruses.

It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.

>>>Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of
>>>antibiotics in young farm animals (babies in effect)
>>>attacked by a serious virus. It is usual for them to
>>>recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial
>>>disease (often scours). The switching over to viral attack,
>>>leaves their immature immune system open to attack by
>>>bacteria. This is so common as to be expected.
>>
>>So what was the antibiotic given for?
>
>Indeed. Prophylactically.

Not a good practice routinely, I would have thought. But at
least one with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the
bacterial infection is routinely expected.

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>news:v3ghhv0hcq6f017l96de1n2r15b2jv4acj@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul)
>> wrote:
>> > Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and
>> > their blood
>> transfusion ban, ferinstance.
>>
>
>given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis
>and possibly nvCJD from blood transfusions, this isn't all
>that silly.

Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these weren't
a problem but the JWs still objected. They quote some
ambiguous anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.

>The practice of giving some of your own blood a couple of
>weeks prior to the operation sounds very sensible

But I guess some would regard this as "auto-canibalism" :)

This autologous transfusion is OK for elective surgery. I
doubt it is cost effective to store folks blood for
emergencies. There are many more alternatives to wholeblood
transfusions these days. My view is to stay clear of the lot
of the bastards :)

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:35:11 +0100, Oz
<acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> writes
>
>>I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks.
>>How do you explain the marked increase in autoimmune
>>diseases lately? As well as food allergies and asthma like
>>allergies?
>
>That was explained (although more info is required for proof)
>by the un- naturally hygienic living conditions of the first
>world (and a lesser extent the second).

Yep, I understand this, but I was wondering how your
contention about the different bacteria/virus pathways fitted
into this. I'd just assumed that lack of any immune challenges
led to an immune system with "idle hands".

>>>>Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.
>>>
>>>Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.
>>
>>I wonder why.
>
>probably because the systems evolved in a situation where
>bacteria dominate.

So why would the viral one dominate? Sorry for being dense, I
was force-fed pasteurised milk as a child :)

>>>Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat than
>>>viruses.
>>
>>It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.
>
>I'm not sure 'lifestyle' is appropriate a word for
>neanderthals.

I've heard it said that neanderthals would make fine
accountants :) And the reason they died out was they were
Goddam fugly :)

>Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that
>man lived in large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with
>good communication between groups.

Within the groups, surely. Ten to 30 k anni?

> I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare
> (and probably pretty devastating).

Well they still are in modern times. Flu and small pox to
name just two.

>Typically the local endemic viruses would have all been
>encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though, would
>continue throughout life.

Well I still get regular (but seldom) colds and flu, how
about you?

>>>>>Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of
>>>>>antibiotics in young farm animals (babies in effect)
>>>>>attacked by a serious virus. It is usual for them to
>>>>>recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial
>>>>>disease (often scours). The switching over to viral
>>>>>attack, leaves their immature immune system open to
>>>>>attack by bacteria. This is so common as to be expected.
>>>>
>>>>So what was the antibiotic given for?
>>>
>>>Indeed. Prophylactically.
>>
>>Not a good practice routinely, I would have thought.
>
>Indeed.
>
>>But at least one with relevant sensitivities would be
>>better, if the bacterial infection is routinely expected.
>
>This is typically the case in young animals with clinical
>viral disease.

Prophylactic antibiotics for likely bacterial secondary
infections. This is what some doctors do for susceptible
patients with viral URTIs. They used to do it routinely when I
was younger. They have seen the light. I have actually told an
older quack that I didn't want his script for antibiotics if
all I had was a virus. All I wanted from him was confirmation
that I didn't have anything eminently treatable. Oh, and a
certificate for work :)

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:38:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>news:k1vhhv0sd9p379llgthi7iaska1rbmg4g2@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>> >news:v3ghhv0hcq6f017l96de1n2r15b2jv4acj@4ax.com...
>> >> On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul)
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs
>> >> > and their blood
>> >> transfusion ban, ferinstance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis
>> >and possibly
>nvCJD
>> >from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.
>>
>> Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these
>> weren't a problem but the JWs still objected. They quote
>> some ambiguous anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.
>
>being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)

Damages the mind, as the skeptics will tell you :)

[Moosh:]]

On 18 Jul 2003 10:20:23 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:

>"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<vcFRa.83470$N7.11293@sccrnsc03>...
>> > The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the
>> > typical consumer. Many people believe that the meat is
>> > somehow internally infected with e.coli. But the
>> > bacterium exists in the steer's digestive system and only
>> > contacts the meat through unhygenic processes during
>> > slaughter. So when I buy a roast the only place possibly
>> > contaminated would be the surface, and that can be washed
>> > off or will be killed in the cooking. The problem arises
>> > when commercial butchers pool and grind large quantities
>> > of beef into hamburger several days before it is ever
>> > used, distributing the bacterium and giving it a window
>> > to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef ground
>> > at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I
>> > did, purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.
>> >
>> > --Hua Kul
>> >
>> > huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com
>>
>> I'm sure you feel much better about yourself
>
>How is it possible that you're "sure" of this? You don't know
>anything about me, and you've made no effort to contact me.
>
>> now that you have typified the US consumer as ignorant.
>
>Ignorance does not imply indifference, stupidity, or lack of
>intelligence.
>
>> Your understanding of steer guts is commendable also.
>
>The extremely simple concept of e. coli. not being present
>internally in uncut meat is NOT common knowledge among many
>consumers with whom I have discussed the issue. I draw my
>conclusions from my admittedly small (compared to national
>population) sample.

I've not actually discussed this with anyone but I would be
almost certain that Australians would have the same ignorance.

>> The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food
>> quality, purity and nutritional value as any in modern
>> nations today.
>
>Then why do I get so many blank stares when I discuss the FFA
>content of animal fats or vegatable oils?

I hope you used another term from FFA :)

>The vast majority of folks simply DON'T know how dangerous to
>their health a high omega6:omega3 ratio
>is.

You mean they eat too much fatty meat, dairy, and manufactured
foods? They are certainly told to avoid these.

>They don't know that most farm raised fish are fed on a grain
>based diet and therefore they are not getting the health
>benefit claimed for fish oil intake.

Surely this depends on species and water temperature.

>They don't understand the safety and need for some saturated
>fats in their diets.

This need would be?

>They don't understand that dietary cholesterol intake doesn't
>much influence their serum cholesterol levels.

I think that fact is being more widely understood. Most folks
now realise how good eggs are for them.

>The don't understand the HUGE increase in vitamins in meat
>from grass fed livestock versus grain fed.

Evidence? Grain has more micronutrients than grass. Grain is
grass seed -- a concentrated capsule of micronutrients.

> They have no clue how dangerous fructose is to our health,

In wholefoods (fruit) and as a sweetener in moderation,
it is fine

>especially to those who have a genetic deficiency that
>inhibits their production of Insulin Receptor Substrate-1.

Being what proportion of the population?

> I could go on and on.

Well please do so, and we can ask questions and pose
alternative views.

>> With the properly written and implemented laws we have
>> today regulating food products there is little need for the
>> person purchasing the family meal to be knowledgeable about
>> any particular health shortcomings of their choices.
>
>This is one of the most elitest things you have yet said.

I read it as being pragmatic. You (and a few here) are
interested in nutrition science. The vast majority of folk are
interested in many other things. They need to learn the
principles of maintaining optimal health and then they can
forget it and get on with their lives. That is why the old
advice to strive for a varied, wholefood, eucaloric diet with
regular moderate exercise is so valid.

>First you say that the typical consumer is not ignorant, then
>you say there is no need for him to be educated.

I think it's just a matter of degree. Some are obsessed with
their diets, some just want to get on with other more
worthwhile pursuits.

>If you are putting your trust in "Big Brother" your walking
>on a dangerous path.

It depends on how you come to get your "big brother"
Apparently America is not ideal in this regard. Many other
places are much better.

> One of the most dangerous foods on the market, man made
> trans fats, are not even required by the government to be
> listed on food product labels.

So why are they doing it here? A little is no problem.
Eating a variety of wholefoods will cause you NO problems
with trans fats.

>> My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the
>> most exacting needs and wants of consumers. This includes
>> the demand for the best health safeguards we have
>> available today.
>>
>> In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and the
>> vast majority of the retail consumers are a very discerning
>> and critical lot. The continual barrage of information and
>> disinformation displayed for public benefit has the buying
>> populace taking even more notice of what is in/on and part
>> of a given product. This is in large part due to the
>> ambiguous claims of the organic growers regarding
>> pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
>
>I don't believe that organic always means better, but I know
>that environmental poisons can damage health, such as the
>increase in breast cancer among women who work around
>pesticides.

Which ones? Many substances "disrupt" oestrogen. Some
pesticides being among them.

> I don't believe basic fertilizers are dangerous, but I also
> know that geographic location has much more to do with
> nutritional quality of foods than any fertilizers we might
> use. We apply three elements,

Who does? Farmers I know apply whatever is deficient, and much
is deficient where I live.

>but many other nutrients, such as selenium, are more
>deficient in some soils than others.

And any passable farmer will remedy this, or be advised to by
his Ag dept.

>If there were a fertilizer that would increase all the
>beneficiel but lacking nutrients I would be in favor of
>applying that to anything that grows.

You don't have to go that far. Analyse your plants and soils
and remedy any deficiency. Most micronutrients only need a top
up about once a decade (depending on soil and climate)

>But only if the grower wants to use it.

Well, as the yield will decline with most deficiencies, he
will eventually go broke, but if he is selling less than
healthy produce the authorities should either bar his produce,
or at least inform the market of his deficiency.

> If people want to purchase "organic" produce it shouldn't be
> kept off the market.

Of course not. Much organic produce is fine, if overpriced.
Organic farmers inevitably cheat (usually unwittingly) or go
out of business coz of an inexorable dive in output.

>One of the outbreaks of e. coli. that got national attention
>was in bottled apple juice. This could be eliminated if
>people would press their own juices.

Well we could go back to subsistence agriculture, and give
up much of our cultural acticvities. I for one would not
like that.

BTW, are you advocating apple juice with its 50% more fructose
than soda pop?

>> The organic faction has quite a following until tests show
>> what is really in the produce. One of our larger retail
>> food chains in the area has ceased selling organic labeled
>> produce because of non-conformance to advertised standards.
>> The GM issue has even more folks taking notice and becoming
>> more aware of what they put into the shopping cart.
>
>Starlink GM corn is now in about 70% of all corn products in
>the US, but I'll bet you a couple of doughnuts that most
>people don't know this.

What is the value in knowing? Most Americans were fine with
GM foods until the rabid greens from Europe introduced the
scare term Frankenfoods" Afterall, you don't know when a
random mutation has occurred in the corn field -- bloody
cosmic rays :)

>> The US consumer ignorant??
>>
>> They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use products
>> whose producers deliberately circumvent the laws and
>> regulations on which we rely to insure the food we consume
>> is wholesome.
>
>Here's one small example of how the food industries in
>general couldn't care less about consumer health if it
>affects their bottom lines. It has been know for a long time
>that man made trans fats are quite dangerous for our health,
>yet bakery producers keep using it because it provides a good
>product texture that doesn't get soggy, and it's cheap.

But as most forlks spread grease (butter, marg) on the bread,
the little bit of fat already in it matters little. You are
claiming a problem is much greater than it really is to make a
point. Manufacturers are there to make a profit for their
shareholders, pure and simple. The regulator that you elect is
there to control the manufacturers from doing harm

>If they wanted to do the best for us they would switch to
>coconut or palm oils, which also stay hard at room
>temperature.

For such a small constituent in wholegrain bread, it hardly
matters, IMHO Of course, cakes and pastries should be avoided,
unless made from wholefoods.

> It was only lies from the grain oil industry that convinced
> US consumers that the tropical oils are bad for us.

All refined oils/fats should be avoided. The tiny amount in
wholegrain breads is not worth worrying about.

>In reality they're much more healthy than vegetable oil-based
>trans fats.

In quantity, but again, this should be avoided

[Jim Webste]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:k1vhhv0sd9p379llgthi7iaska1rbmg4g2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
> >news:v3ghhv0hcq6f017l96de1n2r15b2jv4acj@4ax.com...
> >> On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul)
> >> wrote:
> >> > Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs
> >> > and their blood
> >> transfusion ban, ferinstance.
> >>
> >
> >given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and
> >possibly
nvCJD
> >from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.
>
> Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these
> weren't a problem but the JWs still objected. They quote
> some ambiguous anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.

being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)

Jim Webster

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:47:54 +0100, Oz
<acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> writes

>>>>>>Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder why.
>>>
>>>probably because the systems evolved in a situation where
>>>bacteria dominate.
>>
>>So why would the viral one dominate? Sorry for being dense,
>>I was force-fed pasteurised milk as a child :)
>
>Because for a billion years of evolution bacterial challenge
>was forever dominant. So when you have a see-saw, best to
>bias it away from the direction it is pushed, I would guess.

Sorry, how do you know bacterial challenge was dominant over
these years? There is lots of vestigial organelle evidence for
viral invasions over the aeons.

>>>Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that
>>>man lived in large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with
>>>good communication between groups.
>>
>>Within the groups, surely. Ten to 30 k anni?
>
>Eh?

Which bit? I'm sure the groups competed with little
communication between them. Ten to 30 thousand years?

>>> I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare
>>> (and probably pretty devastating).
>>
>>Well they still are in modern times. Flu and small pox to
>>name just two.
>
>They are probably predominant in modern times. Bacterial
>attack being squashed with antibiotics. Remember a lot of flu
>(eg 'common cold' and gastroenteritis is viral today.

And I'd assumed it was ever thus. I would guess that
antibiotics have had close to zero effect on bacteria. Do you
know of any that have gone extinct?

>>>Typically the local endemic viruses would have all been
>>>encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though,
>>>would continue throughout life.
>>
>>Well I still get regular (but seldom) colds and flu, how
>>about you?
>
>Yes, but I probably get mild bacterial infections of the gut
>every couple of weeks, and for sure when walking and working
>in cow slurry I must be getting a substantial bacterial
>challenge. Remember that a challenge that is 'dealt with' is
>still a challenge and the immune response is triggered even
>if no serious (or even observable) illness results.

Of course. Same with viri

>>>>But at least one with relevant sensitivities would be
>>>>better, if the bacterial infection is routinely expected.
>>>
>>>This is typically the case in young animals with clinical
>>>viral disease.
>>
>>Prophylactic antibiotics for likely bacterial secondary
>>infections. This is what some doctors do for susceptible
>>patients with viral URTIs. They used to do it routinely when
>>I was younger. They have seen the light. I have actually
>>told an older quack that I didn't want his script for
>>antibiotics if all I had was a virus. All I wanted from him
>>was confirmation that I didn't have anything eminently
>>treatable. Oh, and a certificate for work :)
>
>I didn't have you down as a young animal.

I certainly was, a long trime ago. Now I'm an old animal.

[James Curt]

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bf9kt8$9j6$4@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...
>
>
> > Perhaps you could take a couple of hours from your busy
> > and productive
> life
> > and visit a market place. While there pose the question to
> > a diligent consumer "Did your ignorance enter into your
> > deciding to choose that product?"
> >
> > Lasting Lessons can be obtained in various manners.
>
> not only that, but can we know in advance which market then
> we get to sell tickets
>
> Jim Webster
>
> >
> > James Curts
> >

Grin.....

James Curts

[Jim Webste]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:0h5ihvsjaq8di14nnsdsj1ku7jk2b80nvb@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:38:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
> >news:k1vhhv0sd9p379llgthi7iaska1rbmg4g2@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> >> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
> >> >news:v3ghhv0hcq6f017l96de1n2r15b2jv4acj@4ax.com...
> >> >> On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier.
> >> >> > JWs and their
blood
> >> >> transfusion ban, ferinstance.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis
> >> >and possibly
> >nvCJD
> >> >from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.
> >>
> >> Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these
> >> weren't a problem but the JWs still objected. They quote
> >> some ambiguous anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.
> >
> >being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)
>
> Damages the mind, as the skeptics will tell you :)

being right damages the humility

being right for the wrong reasons ensures that this will be
less of a problem :-)

Jim Webster

[Hua Kul]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54>...

> While watching a person or family make selections there are
> some obvious criteria used in the selection of items for the
> cart...Ignorance of the consumer is not one of the criteria
> used for selection of a food product.
>
> Twenty short miles to the West of this area are the
> agricultural communities which consist of a totally
> different culture. The Mexican populace...purchase a quite
> different variety of food products display the identical
> shopping criteria and again, ignorance is not one of them.
>
> The Mexican folks, in general, have probably read
> nothing of the topics we are discussing. However, they
> do display the same common sense, if not significantly
> influenced by financial shortcomings, shown by their
> educated and relatively wealthy counterparts from other
> parts of he world.
>

In your observations have you been able to draw any
conclusions regarding obviously different average health
conditions of people in these disparate cultures, who's food
choices you have characterized as "quite different" but seem
to be implying are essentially equivalent?

--Hua Kul

[Hua Kul]

"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54>...
>
> I live in the Portland Oregon area...

Apparently Portlanders (Portlandites?) take their government
regulations quite seriously.

========================================================================

"The owners of some of the 16 or more dogs believed to have
been poisoned at Southeast Portland's Laurelhurst Park
between July 3 and July 9 think the poisoning is related to
the city's controversy over off-leash dogs. And Sgt. Brian
Schmautz, spokesman for the Portland Police Bureau, says
they may be right. "Obviously, we won't know until we have
a suspect and know what his motive was," Schmautz said
Wednesday. "But we've been hearing anecdotally that many of
these (affected) dogs were possibly off-leash and that the
substance may have been left in places, like bushes,
designed to target off-leash dogs." Veterinarians who
treated some of the dogs suspect that they were poisoned
with meat laced with the highly toxic herbicide paraquat.
Results of tests done on several of the eight dogs that
have died so far were not available at press time.
Paraquat, which is used for weed control, can be legally
purchased and sold in Oregon only by people or businesses
with special licenses from the Oregon Department of
Agriculture.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=19225
============================================================================

It may not have been paraquat at all. Perhaps the dogs just
stumbled upon some unwashed organic produce. ~<8^)

--Hua Kul

[Torsten Br]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
<jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:

>Many of these chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt
>grown vegetables, were within the plant structure and could
>not be washed off. The only solutions are to remove the items
>from the store shelves, which one major local grocery chain
>did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably
>that customers consumed the evidence.

The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in
American hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as one
example that residues of toxic chemicals within the plant
structure cannot be washed off. Indeed such aldicarb-soaked
hydroponically grown cucumbers would had been better removed
from the shelves -- before unknowing customers ate them and
got sick. However, hydroponically grown produce should from
what I've heard generally have -lower- residues than
conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not very
often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently
lead to clinical poisoning.

[James Curt]

"Hua Kul" <gmp@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:3da4c6e5.0307190751.f6e4560@posting.google.com...
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54>...
>
> > While watching a person or family make selections there
> > are some obvious criteria used in the selection of
items
> > for the cart...Ignorance of the consumer is not one of the
> > criteria used for selection of a food product.
> >
> > Twenty short miles to the West of this area are the
> > agricultural communities which consist of a totally
> > different culture. The Mexican populace...purchase a quite
> > different variety of food products display the identical
> > shopping criteria and again, ignorance is not one
of
> > them.
> >
> > The Mexican folks, in general, have probably read nothing
> > of the topics
we
> > are discussing. However, they do display the same common
> > sense, if not significantly influenced by financial
> > shortcomings, shown by their
educated
> > and relatively wealthy counterparts from other parts of he
> > world.
> >
>
> In your observations have you been able to draw any
> conclusions regarding obviously different average health
> conditions of people in these disparate cultures, who's food
> choices you have characterized as "quite different" but seem
> to be implying are essentially equivalent?
>
> --Hua Kul

My conclusions in part are that people from all walks of like
select the highest quality foods their financial situation and
tastes will support. This includes the crossing of cultural
food lines and implementing different generally healthy
combinations into their diet.

The variations of this are generally around the area of
selecting a more bulky or filling item, pleasure items
(sweets, etc.) and impulsive selections which often do not
fit the norm for them. Consumers falling into this group are
obviously trying to stretch the grocery budget. Visiting the
grocery store may be one of their more significant shopping
activities outside the home so the more frivolous items are
found in the cart at the check stands. Often an item is to
appease a child, or even reward him but the choice is made
to please.

Of interest is the grueling a customer may give the clerk or
helper in a making a decision regarding a particular product.
The lady buying $15 shishkabob will ask questions and point
disparagingly in much the same manner as the mom buying $1.79
burger. And, almost humorously, stand and nit pick the cashier
over items on the sales receipt.

I can not make ignorance fit into this scenario. Wealth or the
lack of it, human frailty or even utility of the moment
perhaps. I believe people are formally as well as informally
well informed and deviate from using this knowledge by choice
or by circumstances.

To the question of health I see obesity as the one overriding
difference in any group of people. Less advantaged folks tend
not to break from the confines of social lineage and are
generally in the more financially suppressed portion of any
given community.

I do not say this easily and certainly do not wish to offend
anyone. I am just stating what I observe.

These folks seem to be the most difficult to educate on health
matters and in our country we are witnessing a new generation
with disproportionate numbers of inactive obese children. Just
as a smoker/drinker demands his right to smoke/drink an obese
person is highly offended when asked why they continue to eat
foods which contribute to their weight problem.

I will not continue on the obese issue but, sadly, I find them
the one group which are the most difficult to help and
convince that diet aids and training are indeed available.
They are also the one group which, although happenchance of
birth and circumstances set the stage, will seldom willingly
move toward better ends. It is tough but in a high percentage
of cases well within their power to do so.

James Curts

[James Curt]

"Hua Kul" <gmp@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:3da4c6e5.0307190936.24862f21@posting.google.com...
> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54>...
> >
> > I live in the Portland Oregon area...
>
> Apparently Portlanders (Portlandites?) take their government
> regulations quite seriously.
>
> ========================================================================

> "The owners of some of the 16 or more dogs believed to
> have been poisoned at Southeast Portland's Laurelhurst
> Park between July 3 and July 9 think the poisoning is
> related to the city's controversy over off-leash dogs.
> And Sgt. Brian Schmautz, spokesman for the Portland
> Police Bureau, says they may be right. "Obviously, we
> won't know until we have a suspect and know what his
> motive was," Schmautz said Wednesday. "But we've been
> hearing anecdotally that many of these (affected) dogs
> were possibly off-leash and that the substance may have
> been left in places, like bushes, designed to target
> off-leash dogs." Veterinarians who treated some of the
> dogs suspect that they were poisoned with meat laced with
> the highly toxic herbicide paraquat. Results of tests
> done on several of the eight dogs that have died so far
> were not available at press time. Paraquat, which is used
> for weed control, can be legally purchased and sold in
> Oregon only by people or businesses with special licenses
> from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
>
> http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=19225
>
============================================================================

>
> It may not have been paraquat at all. Perhaps the dogs just
> stumbled upon some unwashed organic produce. ~<8^)
>
> --Hua Kul

Grin.........

I suppose since we don't have unpasteurized milk readily
available in our parks................

Of interest re: washing organic foods, which I highly
recommend, did not remove the chemicals which tests indicated
they contained. Many of these chemicals, just as in the
instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within the plant
structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are
to remove the items from the store shelves, which one major
local grocery chain did, or to advertise the product so
strongly and favorably that customers consumed the evidence.

James Curts

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:32:57 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>news:0h5ihvsjaq8di14nnsdsj1ku7jk2b80nvb@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:38:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>> >news:k1vhhv0sd9p379llgthi7iaska1rbmg4g2@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
>> >> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>> >> >news:v3ghhv0hcq6f017l96de1n2r15b2jv4acj@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier.
>> >> >> > JWs and their
>blood
>> >> >> transfusion ban, ferinstance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis
>> >> >and possibly
>> >nvCJD
>> >> >from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these
>> >> weren't a problem but the JWs still objected. They quote
>> >> some ambiguous anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.
>> >
>> >being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)
>>
>> Damages the mind, as the skeptics will tell you :)
>
>being right damages the humility

Not mine. I know no different :)

>being right for the wrong reasons ensures that this will be
>less of a problem :-)

I can remember as a kid getting the right answer to a math
exam question by using the unapproved method, and being marked
wrong. Scarred me for life :)

[Moosh:]]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:46:34 GMT, "James Curts"
<jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
>news:t96jhvgtesf963f6mhm3t16ag70cfujevq@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
>> <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Many of these chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt
>> >grown vegetables, were within the plant structure and
>> >could not be washed off. The only solutions are
>to
>> >remove the items from the store shelves, which one major
>> >local grocery
>chain
>> >did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably
>> >that customers consumed the evidence.
>>
>> The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in
>> American hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as
>> one example that residues of toxic chemicals within the
>> plant structure cannot be washed off. Indeed such
>> aldicarb-soaked hydroponically grown cucumbers would had
>> been better removed from the shelves -- before unknowing
>> customers ate them and got sick. However, hydroponically
>> grown produce should from what I've heard generally have
>> -lower- residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the
>> residues would not very often exceed maximum recommended
>> levels, and not frequently lead to clinical poisoning.
>
>The first portion of your message is factual while the
>insinuation at the end is unfounded and unnecessary.
>
>Aldicarb (trade name Temik) is a granular pesticide
>registered since 1970. It is used to control insects, mites,
>and nematodes on bananas, cotton, citrus, dry beans, grain
>sorghum, ornamentals, pecans, peanuts, potatoes, seed
>alfalfa, soybeans, sugar beets, sugarcane, sweet potatoes,
>and tobacco. Additionally, there are tolerances established
>for residues of aldicarb on imported bananas and coffee
>beans. Rhone-Poulenc is the sole registrant of aldicarb. It
>is restricted to use by certified applicators only.
>
>Aldicarb was never licensed or intended for use on water
>melons or cucumbers. The use on the cucumbers you mentioned
>was illegal and while a fact was not discovered and isolated
>to prevent the illness and hospitalization of consumers until
>after the fact.
>
>The EPA was immediately on top of this and was grateful that
>Rhone-Poulenc immediately pulled the product and compensated
>the growers for the purchases.
>
>Conventional hydroponic produce, unfortunately and for news
>fodder, is lumped together with produce obtained by
>introducing "organic" additives into the nutrient supply. The
>cucumbers in question were from an "organic" hydroponics
>grower whose crop was infested almost beyond redemption
>practices by insects, mites, etc. and the chemical was
>applied in much higher amounts than was necessary.
>
>Normal hydroponic practice is to create an environment in the
>greenhouse which supports beneficial insects and organisms to
>combat these unwanted infestations. Chemical additives are
>seldom even considered or necessary and in today's well
>overseen actions nothing harmful is ever used in the serious
>commercial operation.
>
>What you've "heard" is of no import and in simple form has no
>foundation other than to imply a familiarity you do not
>possess with the topic.
>
>A serious study of hydroponics growing practices as we find
>in the US, Australia, Israel, etc. shows a conscientious
>approach to food production not found in dirt or supposed
>"organic" systems.
>
>To clarify a small point, organic growing practices in true
>form are the ideal food growing method and produce healthy,
>nutritious and wholesome food. In reality and from a
>commercial standpoint it cannot compete with conventional
>dirt farming in the market place. From the same standpoint it
>cannot compete with standard hydroponics without cheating.
>Cheating means using the large hidden barrels of chemicals
>and the sprayers after hours, as one example.

Cheating can be unwitting. For instance, farmer A farms
organically (so he thinks, along with the trade regulator)
farmer B applies all the replacement nutrients to his land
(synthetic nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus salts, and any
trace element salts required) and sells organic matter to
farmer A who fertilises his land with this OM. Now he doesn't
think that he is indirectly using artificial ferts to his
land, but what do you think?

>"Organics" being no more than a marketing ploy in today's
>market place is hard pressed to maintain a market share due
>to the added cost of production and the subsequent higher
>price to the consumer. As mentioned earlier, the production
>standards and supply guarantees have caused the removal of
>"organic" fresh produce from the shelves of a major chain of
>grocery stores in our area and without customer complaint.
>
>The statement containing: "heard generally have -lower-
>residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues
>would not very often exceed maximum recommended levels, and
>not frequently lead to clinical poisoning." is ambiguous,
>cheap and insinuating reporting at best. Hydroponics is not
>in question and conversations with the folks world wide who
>produce and use these products are proud of what has been
>accomplished.
>
>James Curts

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
<jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:

>Of interest re: washing organic foods, which I highly
>recommend, did not remove the chemicals which tests indicated
>they contained. Many of these chemicals, just as in the
>instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within the plant
>structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are
>to remove the items from the store shelves, which one major
>local grocery chain did, or to advertise the product so
>strongly and favorably that customers consumed the evidence.

All produce contains many toxins. Below the safe threshold as
well. You really should have a read of EXTOXNET and bookmark
it for future reference. Not all pesticides are the same.

http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html

[Moosh:]]

On 19 Jul 2003 10:36:49 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:

>"James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54>...
>>
>> I live in the Portland Oregon area...
>
>Apparently Portlanders (Portlandites?) take their government
>regulations quite seriously.
>
>========================================================================

> "The owners of some of the 16 or more dogs believed to
> have been poisoned at Southeast Portland's Laurelhurst
> Park between July 3 and July 9 think the poisoning is
> related to the city's controversy over off-leash dogs. And
> Sgt. Brian Schmautz, spokesman for the Portland Police
> Bureau, says they may be right. "Obviously, we won't know
> until we have a suspect and know what his motive was,"
> Schmautz said Wednesday. "But we've been hearing
> anecdotally that many of these (affected) dogs were
> possibly off-leash and that the substance may have been
> left in places, like bushes, designed to target off-leash
> dogs." Veterinarians who treated some of the dogs suspect
> that they were poisoned with meat laced with the highly
> toxic herbicide paraquat. Results of tests done on several
> of the eight dogs that have died so far were not available
> at press time. Paraquat, which is used for weed control,
> can be legally purchased and sold in Oregon only by people
> or businesses with special licenses from the Oregon
> Department of Agriculture.
>
>http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=19225
>============================================================================

>
>It may not have been paraquat at all. Perhaps the dogs just
>stumbled upon some unwashed organic produce. ~<8^)

Another ignorant "pesticides are all the same" advocate who
needs to go to EXTOXNET for a read.

http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:28:35 GMT, "James Curts"
<jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Hua Kul" <gmp@adres.nl> wrote in message
>news:3da4c6e5.0307190751.f6e4560@posting.google.com...
>> "James Curts" <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54>...
>>
>> > While watching a person or family make selections there
>> > are some obvious criteria used in the selection of
>items
>> > for the cart...Ignorance of the consumer is not one of
>> > the criteria used for selection of a food product.
>> >
>> > Twenty short miles to the West of this area are the
>> > agricultural communities which consist of a totally
>> > different culture. The Mexican populace...purchase a
>> > quite different variety of food products display the
>> > identical shopping criteria and again, ignorance is
>> > not one
>of
>> > them.
>> >
>> > The Mexican folks, in general, have probably read nothing
>> > of the topics
>we
>> > are discussing. However, they do display the same common
>> > sense, if not significantly influenced by financial
>> > shortcomings, shown by their
>educated
>> > and relatively wealthy counterparts from other parts of
>> > he world.
>> >
>>
>> In your observations have you been able to draw any
>> conclusions regarding obviously different average health
>> conditions of people in these disparate cultures, who's
>> food choices you have characterized as "quite different"
>> but seem to be implying are essentially equivalent?
>>
>> --Hua Kul
>
>My conclusions in part are that people from all walks of like
>select the highest quality foods their financial situation
>and tastes will support.

Except in America and Australia. Just look at a few
supermarket trollies.

>This includes the crossing of cultural food lines and
>implementing different generally healthy combinations into
>their diet.
>
>The variations of this are generally around the area of
>selecting a more bulky or filling item, pleasure items
>(sweets, etc.) and impulsive selections which often do not
>fit the norm for them. Consumers falling into this group are
>obviously trying to stretch the grocery budget. Visiting the
>grocery store may be one of their more significant shopping
>activities outside the home so the more frivolous items are
>found in the cart at the check stands. Often an item is to
>appease a child, or even reward him but the choice is made
>to please.
>
>Of interest is the grueling a customer may give the clerk or
>helper in a making a decision regarding a particular product.
>The lady buying $15 shishkabob will ask questions and point
>disparagingly in much the same manner as the mom buying $1.79
>burger. And, almost humorously, stand and nit pick the
>cashier over items on the sales receipt.
>
>I can not make ignorance fit into this scenario. Wealth or
>the lack of it, human frailty or even utility of the moment
>perhaps. I believe people are formally as well as informally
>well informed and deviate from using this knowledge by choice
>or by circumstances.
>
>To the question of health I see obesity as the one overriding
>difference in any group of people. Less advantaged folks tend
>not to break from the confines of social lineage and are
>generally in the more financially suppressed portion of any
>given community.

My bil and his American wife, are retired in Oz, but lived in
US for 20 years on a salary package of 250k. They are as fat
as pigs, both had heart surgery, and refuse to curb the good
life. None of the rest of the family are so.

>I do not say this easily and certainly do not wish to offend
>anyone. I am just stating what I observe.
>
>These folks seem to be the most difficult to educate on
>health matters and in our country we are witnessing a new
>generation with disproportionate numbers of inactive obese
>children. Just as a smoker/drinker demands his right to
>smoke/drink an obese person is highly offended when asked
>why they continue to eat foods which contribute to their
>weight problem.

But you are ignoring the fact that many of them have diets now
that DON'T contribute to their health problems. As I have said
before, a fat person who eats a eucaloric, healthy diet, won't
lose weight.

>I will not continue on the obese issue but, sadly, I find
>them the one group which are the most difficult to help and
>convince that diet aids and training are indeed available.
>They are also the one group which, although happenchance of
>birth and circumstances set the stage, will seldom willingly
>move toward better ends. It is tough but in a high percentage
>of cases well within their power to do so.

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:19:01 +0100, Oz
<acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>Because it's dominant in animals and third world countries.
>Bacteria are a continual challenge. Viruses are only
>successful when they find an immunologically naive organism,
>which is quite hard without movement between distant
>populations.

Yep, I follow that, thanks. Modern hygiene is cutting out so
many subclinical bacterial challenges.

>>Sorry, how do you know bacterial challenge was dominant over
>>these years? There is lots of vestigial organelle evidence
>>for viral invasions over the aeons.
>
>I never said viruses didn't exist. They did and do. I said
>for most wild populations bacteria offer a continual
>challenge, not viruses which tend to be rare and sporadic.

Hokay, Thanks.

>>And I'd assumed it was ever thus. I would guess that
>>antibiotics have had close to zero effect on bacteria. Do
>>you know of any that have gone extinct?
>
>The main human pathogens (ie they make people very ill) are
>very rare. Remember that before antibiotics hospitals were
>predominantly filled with bacterially infected people. The
>'fever wards'.

I'm not sure. I can name smallpox, influenza,
poliomyelitis, measles, yellow fever, dengue fever, HIV,
herpes, hepatitis A,B,C,D,E,F,G, rabies, psittacosis,
mumps, many gastrointestinal infections, mononucleosis, and
many other "fevers" and so on. Not sure of the numbers
though. You may be right

>>>Yes, but I probably get mild bacterial infections of the
>>>gut every couple of weeks, and for sure when walking and
>>>working in cow slurry I must be getting a substantial
>>>bacterial challenge. Remember that a challenge that is
>>>'dealt with' is still a challenge and the immune response
>>>is triggered even if no serious (or even observable)
>>>illness results.
>>
>>Of course. Same with viri
>
>Indeed, however most viruses are highly species-specific,
>most bacteria are not. ECO157 can happily move from cow to
>person whilst BVD cannot. So typically bacteria get a bit
>of a permanent toehold moving between species whilst
>viruses typically exist at very low level in an
>immunologically resistant population and only get to attack
>each individual once.

Tell that to shingles sufferers and my herpes simplex and flu
and colds :) But I hear what you say, thanks.

[James Curt]

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:t96jhvgtesf963f6mhm3t16ag70cfujevq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
> <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Many of these chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt
> >grown vegetables, were within the plant structure and could
> >not be washed off. The only solutions are
to
> >remove the items from the store shelves, which one major
> >local grocery
chain
> >did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably
> >that customers consumed the evidence.
>
> The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in
> American hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as one
> example that residues of toxic chemicals within the plant
> structure cannot be washed off. Indeed such aldicarb-soaked
> hydroponically grown cucumbers would had been better removed
> from the shelves -- before unknowing customers ate them and
> got sick. However, hydroponically grown produce should from
> what I've heard generally have -lower- residues than
> conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not very
> often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently
> lead to clinical poisoning.

The first portion of your message is factual while the
insinuation at the end is unfounded and unnecessary.

Aldicarb (trade name Temik) is a granular pesticide registered
since 1970. It is used to control insects, mites, and
nematodes on bananas, cotton, citrus, dry beans, grain
sorghum, ornamentals, pecans, peanuts, potatoes, seed alfalfa,
soybeans, sugar beets, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, and tobacco.
Additionally, there are tolerances established for residues of
aldicarb on imported bananas and coffee beans. Rhone-Poulenc
is the sole registrant of aldicarb. It is restricted to use by
certified applicators only.

Aldicarb was never licensed or intended for use on water
melons or cucumbers. The use on the cucumbers you mentioned
was illegal and while a fact was not discovered and isolated
to prevent the illness and hospitalization of consumers until
after the fact.

The EPA was immediately on top of this and was grateful that
Rhone-Poulenc immediately pulled the product and compensated
the growers for the purchases.

Conventional hydroponic produce, unfortunately and for news
fodder, is lumped together with produce obtained by
introducing "organic" additives into the nutrient supply. The
cucumbers in question were from an "organic" hydroponics
grower whose crop was infested almost beyond redemption
practices by insects, mites, etc. and the chemical was applied
in much higher amounts than was necessary.

Normal hydroponic practice is to create an environment in the
greenhouse which supports beneficial insects and organisms to
combat these unwanted infestations. Chemical additives are
seldom even considered or necessary and in today's well
overseen actions nothing harmful is ever used in the serious
commercial operation.

What you've "heard" is of no import and in simple form has no
foundation other than to imply a familiarity you do not
possess with the topic.

A serious study of hydroponics growing practices as we find
in the US, Australia, Israel, etc. shows a conscientious
approach to food production not found in dirt or supposed
"organic" systems.

To clarify a small point, organic growing practices in true
form are the ideal food growing method and produce healthy,
nutritious and wholesome food. In reality and from a
commercial standpoint it cannot compete with conventional dirt
farming in the market place. From the same standpoint it
cannot compete with standard hydroponics without cheating.
Cheating means using the large hidden barrels of chemicals and
the sprayers after hours, as one example.

"Organics" being no more than a marketing ploy in today's
market place is hard pressed to maintain a market share due to
the added cost of production and the subsequent higher price
to the consumer. As mentioned earlier, the production
standards and supply guarantees have caused the removal of
"organic" fresh produce from the shelves of a major chain of
grocery stores in our area and without customer complaint.

The statement containing: "heard generally have -lower-
residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues
would not very often exceed maximum recommended levels, and
not frequently lead to clinical poisoning." is ambiguous,
cheap and insinuating reporting at best. Hydroponics is not in
question and conversations with the folks world wide who
produce and use these products are proud of what has been
accomplished.

James Curts

[Torsten Br]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:46:34 GMT, "James Curts"
<jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
>news:t96jhvgtesf963f6mhm3t16ag70cfujevq@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
>> <jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Many of these chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt
>> >grown vegetables, were within the plant structure and
>> >could not be washed off. The only solutions are
>to
>> >remove the items from the store shelves, which one major
>> >local grocery
>chain
>> >did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably
>> >that customers consumed the evidence.
>>
>> The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in
>> American hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as
>> one example that residues of toxic chemicals within the
>> plant structure cannot be washed off. Indeed such
>> aldicarb-soaked hydroponically grown cucumbers would had
>> been better removed from the shelves -- before unknowing
>> customers ate them and got sick. However, hydroponically
>> grown produce should from what I've heard generally have
>> -lower- residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the
>> residues would not very often exceed maximum recommended
>> levels, and not frequently lead to clinical poisoning.
>
>The first portion of your message is factual while the
>insinuation at the end is unfounded and unnecessary.

But, there is no insinuation at the end. It is all factual.

>Aldicarb (trade name Temik) is a granular pesticide
>registered since 1970. It is used to control insects, mites,
>and nematodes on bananas, cotton, citrus, dry beans, grain
>sorghum, ornamentals, pecans, peanuts, potatoes, seed
>alfalfa, soybeans, sugar beets, sugarcane, sweet potatoes,
>and tobacco. Additionally, there are tolerances established
>for residues of aldicarb on imported bananas

You are using an outdated source of information. There are no
tolerances for aldicarb in bananas, they were revoked many
years ago when Rhone Poulenc withdrew support for aldicarb use
on banana due to concerns of residues above tolerances
resulting from such use.

>and coffee beans. Rhone-Poulenc is the sole registrant of
>aldicarb. It is restricted to use by certified
>applicators only.

>Aldicarb was never licensed or intended for use on water
>melons or cucumbers. The use on the cucumbers you mentioned
>was illegal and while a fact was not discovered and isolated
>to prevent the illness and hospitalization of consumers until
>after the fact.

I know all that. Still, food poisoning with aldicarb from
hydroponically grown cucumbers did happen, and on more than
one occasion.

>The EPA was immediately on top of this and was grateful that
>Rhone-Poulenc immediately pulled the product and compensated
>the growers for the purchases.

I think you have gotten the unfortunate cucumber cases mixed
up with the unfortunate cases of aldicarb residues in potatoes
above tolerances. However, those potatoes were conventionally
dirt grown, not grown in a hydroponic system.

>Conventional hydroponic produce, unfortunately and for news
>fodder, is lumped together with produce obtained by
>introducing "organic" additives into the nutrient supply. The
>cucumbers in question were from an "organic" hydroponics
>grower whose crop was infested almost beyond redemption
>practices by insects, mites, etc. and the chemical was
>applied in much higher amounts than was necessary.

Well, obviously doses were unusually high or people wouldn't
have got sick. According to WHO data I've seen the
investigators of one of these cases found 1.8 mg/l in the
water used in the hydroponic system, and 0.6 mg/kg in the
gravel used. Residues found in the cucumbers were between 0.7
and 6.6 mg/kg.

>Normal hydroponic practice is to create an environment in the
>greenhouse which supports beneficial insects and organisms to
>combat these unwanted infestations. Chemical additives are
>seldom even considered or necessary and in today's well
>overseen actions nothing harmful is ever used in the serious
>commercial operation.

So, hydroponic produce generally would have lower pesticide
residues than conventionally dirt-grown. Just as I said.

>What you've "heard" is of no import and in simple form has no
>foundation other than to imply a familiarity you do not
>possess with the topic.

Nonsense. I am referring that what I hear from you and other
hydroponic proponents: that hydroponic produce generally have
lower residues than conventionally dirt-grown.

>A serious study of hydroponics growing practices as we find
>in the US, Australia, Israel, etc. shows a conscientious
>approach to food production not found in dirt or supposed
>"organic" systems.

But, you have no serious study to back up this extreme
claim, right?

>To clarify a small point, organic growing practices in true
>form are the ideal food growing method and produce healthy,
>nutritious and wholesome food.

Indeed. If you want minimal pesticide residues in your
produce, you should certainly consider getting it from
organic systems.

>In reality and from a commercial standpoint it cannot compete
>with conventional dirt farming in the market place.

Not clear what you mean by this. Organic farming does not
cater for the same market as conventional.

>From the same standpoint it cannot compete with standard
>hydroponics without cheating.

Same comment, the standpoint is invalid, since organic farming
caters for a distinct market for organic food, which
hydroponic and conventional geoponic simply do not produce.

<snip tiresome repetitions

[James Curt]

> Cheating can be unwitting. For instance, farmer A farms
> organically (so he thinks, along with the trade regulator)
> farmer B applies all the replacement nutrients to his land
> (synthetic nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus salts, and any
> trace element salts required) and sells organic matter to
> farmer A who fertilises his land with this OM. Now he
> doesn't think that he is indirectly using artificial ferts
> to his land, but what do you think?
>

The cheating to which I refer involves the deliberate
circumvention of the intent of "organic" guidelines by
growers. Sadly most of these guidelines are very thinly veiled
and of little use except to mislead the consumer. When reading
the "organic" label he would like to believe he can be
assurance the product is of more wholesome quality and free of
pesticides as is insinuated by the vagueness of the
guidelines. Not true on today's store shelves.

An instance we watched in this area was the labeling of
packaged lettuce from the Salinas California area that was one
day normal lettuce and the next day had the big bold "organic"
label on it. Strange that a crop could change it's content
overnight. Not so strange is the fact that it did not fly and
is no longer stocked as organic. I believe the consumers are
starting to become even more aware of what goes on before food
products hit the shelves.

James Curts

[Moosh:]]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:09:07 GMT, "James Curts"
<jamescurts@comcast.net> wrote:

>>
>> Cheating can be unwitting. For instance, farmer A farms
>> organically (so he thinks, along with the trade regulator)
>> farmer B applies all the replacement nutrients to his land
>> (synthetic nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus salts, and
>> any trace element salts required) and sells organic matter
>> to farmer A who fertilises his land with this OM. Now he
>> doesn't think that he is indirectly using artificial ferts
>> to his land, but what do you think?
>>
>
>The cheating to which I refer involves the deliberate
>circumvention of the intent of "organic" guidelines by
>growers.

I understand, but I was merely trying to show that this small
amount of "cheating" is accompanied by a much larger form of
unwitting "cheating".

>Sadly most of these guidelines are very thinly veiled and of
>little use except to mislead the consumer.

That's the effect, I believe, but I'm not sure it is the
intent of obssessed organic growers. They are self-deluded to
believe they are doing the best for everyone concerned, in my
experience.

>When reading the "organic" label he would like to believe he
>can be assurance the product is of more wholesome quality and
>free of pesticides as is insinuated by the vagueness of the
>guidelines. Not true on today's store shelves.

This sadly seems to be the case.

>An instance we watched in this area was the labeling of
>packaged lettuce from the Salinas California area that was
>one day normal lettuce and the next day had the big bold
>"organic" label on it. Strange that a crop could change it's
>content overnight. Not so strange is the fact that it did not
>fly and is no longer stocked as organic. I believe the
>consumers are starting to become even more aware of what goes
>on before food products hit the shelves.

In Australia, one of the biggest beef raising areas in the
World, in Queensland, is "organic" and has been for a hundred
years. Not that they do anything out of the normal practice
here, it just naturally fits into organic guidelines. Very
popular in Japan.

[Bruce Sinc]

In article <jq6chv0ju0i5agp4a7sip1sctetph9odkm@4ax.com>,
"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 02:57:37 GMT,
>bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce
>Sinclair) wrote:
>
>>In article <berhuc$64v$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim
>>Webster"
> <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>><cor@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3F113281.94B61451@exchangenet.net...
>>>> all those in your family that where born! A bunch of
>>>> fetuses probably got the natural selection hatchet before
>>>> having a chance of drinking milk, thanks to having you
>>>> and your relatives as idiotic parents.
>>>>
>>>> Keep it up, You might get one of those Darwin awards in
>>>> the listeriosis category: How to get rid of your progeny
>>>> before is born!
>>>
>>>tsk tsk, we are hysterical aren't we
>>>
>>>you are far more likely to suffer ill health from the
>>>stress of believing half the loonie scares that circulate
>>>than you are from actually eating the food
>>
>>Well said ! ... the effects of stress from worrying about
>>what you are eating have not, to my knowledge, been
>>measured.
>>
>>You have to die of something ... it may as well be food :)
>
>Tell that to the folks on the diabetes groups.

Still true. Don't eat ... you die.

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------
----------
Oook ! NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM
!