Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for July 21st, 2010

Homogenizing America: Milk Wars, Part 2 — (cooked) Milk Sucks, Depending on your Ethnicity

leave a comment »

Well, I promised Part 2 on the MILK Wars, so here’s some more material for rumination.

NOTE: Not for filing under “the author of Let’sGetHonest is an earth mother health nut.”

Well, the “nut” maybe, about health, plus some: subtract the earth, though

But I hope you file this under “the Pedigree of Ideas” and ask, what other nutty thinking fell off the same tree.

First of all, we saw how vicious the retaliation against small, self-sustaining and health-producing farms (and cows) who didn’t leave a large footprint, require cow food to be imported, or cows to be fed ground up parts of almost any refuse while stacked on top of each other, and use up more fossil fuel in the process of bringing their food in, and their output out, after which they could be abused some more shortly before slaughtering.

There MUST be some reasoning behind this. It’s clear some thought process went into trying to eliminate the small organic dairy farmers, and preventing people from choosing their own foods which don’t make them sick. Hmm…. It takes coordination to pull off a raid of a dairy farm, right?

veggies.jpg (6769 bytes)

THIS has a Business History, yes it does:

Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry
By Ché Green

The dairy industry has spent billions of dollars convincing us that milk is healthy, all the while pumping chemicals into cows and the milk itself that makes it deadly.

Milk, they say, is an important source of calcium that helps kids grow up big and strong. Milk is said to contain vital nutrients and to help prevent osteoporosis. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its food dietary guidelines, says that everyone should get 2-3 servings of dairy every day. Milk is advocated by various agencies of the U.S. government, legions of physicians, and the $180 million annual advertising budget of the dairy industry itself. Britney Spears, Carson Daly, Neve Campbell, Spike Lee, and other fine celebrities have endorsed milk, decorating thousands of billboards with their mustachioed mugs.

And, indeed, America has a love affair with milk. The average person living in the United States consumes over 600 pounds of dairy products every year, including about 420 pounds of fluid milk and cream, 70 pounds of various milk-based fats and oils, 30 pounds of cheese, and 17 pounds of ice cream. In aggregate, U.S. dairy farmers produce 163 billion pounds of milk and milk products a year.

But what if Britney and Spike were lying to us? What if milk doesn’t do a body good? Instead, what if milk is a major contributor to breast cancer, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, and more? What if the U.S. government and the dairy industry are colluding to hide the ill effects of dairy consumption?

According to Amy Lanou, Ph.D., the nutrition director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), “Besides prostate cancer, milk has been linked to asthma, anemia, allergies, juvenile-onset diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and ovarian and breast cancer.”

Why then, is milk still widely regarded as wholesome?

The USDA’s Food Pyramid Scheme

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to its mission statement, is charged with “enhancing the quality of life for the American people by supporting the production of agriculture.” Created by the pro-business Lincoln administration in 1862, today’s USDA has the dual responsibility of assisting dairy farmers while promoting healthy dietary choices for Americans. Not surprisingly, this creates a conflict of interest that puts at risk the objectivity of government farm policy and the health of all dairy-consuming Americans.

In December 1999, the PCRM filed suit against the USDA, claiming the department unfairly promotes the special interests of the meat and dairy industries through its official dietary guidelines and the Food Pyramid. Six of the eleven members assigned to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee were demonstrated to have financial ties to meat, dairy, and egg interests. Prior to the suit, which the PCRM won in December 2000, the USDA had refused to disclose such conflicts of interest to the general public.

I’m not done yet, not with this site. Because we have to look at that school system, and which populations are probably LEAST likely to be able to get out from under it.

Government Cheese

With the recent passage of the Farm Bill on May 13, 2002, dairy farmers and processors will receive $2 billion more in subsidies over the next three and a half years, largely realized through price supports that inflate costs for consumers. Dairy subsidies are a carryover from the Depression era, when survival of small dairy farmers was considered essential to maintaining a national food supply.

Today, a large chunk of that additional $2 billion in subsidies is going to large dairy farms in twelve northeastern states. Further, as consolidation continues to occur in the dairy industry, federal subsidies are going to an increasingly small number of highly concentrated dairy operations, hanging small farmers out to dry and encouraging the demise of family farms. This increase in large industrial farms bodes ill for both cows and humans.

Lactose Intolerance and Ethnic Discrimination

Another assertion of the suit brought by the PCRM against the USDA is that the status of milk as a staple in school lunch programs unfairly discriminates against non-whites who have a high incidence of lactose intolerance. In total, there are an estimated 50 million lactose intolerant adults in the U.S., including 15 percent of the white population, 70 percent of the black population, and 80 to 97 percent of Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Jews of European descent. These 50 million people suffer from a variety of digestive symptoms that result from consuming milk and other dairy products, including gas, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, and indigestion.

Currently, the USDA requires that every public school in the country serve milk. There’s even a push by Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) to offer financial incentives to schools that install milk vending machines (after California, New York is the second largest dairy-producing state). Further, students cannot get free or subsidized alternatives to milk, such as juice or soy milk, without a note from their physician, so for 70 percent of black kids in public schools, a negative response to lactose intake is practically mandated by the U.S. Government. Same goes for 90 percent of Asian American students and 74 percent of Native American students.

The PCRM asserts that huge dairy subsidies and broad-based promotion of milk by the government’s school lunch program is a form of economic racism that isolates minorities and encourages them to consume something they’re disproportionately intolerant of or allergic to.

rBGH and the Damage Done

Girls in the U.S. are beginning to menstruate at younger and younger ages. According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition, some girls are now experiencing the effects of puberty as young as three years of age. Fifty years ago the incidence of breast cancer risk among U.S. women was one in twenty, a percentage that has grown to one in eight women as of 2001.

Here’s a big part of the reason why: Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) is a naturally occurring hormone produced by milk cows. Closely resembling the natural growth hormones in human children, the presence of BGH in milk has been shown to significantly elevate hormone levels in people, creating a host of growth problems.

That’s not even accounting for the use of artificial hormones. Recombinant BGH (rBGH) is an unnaturally occurring, genetically engineered hormone produced by Monsanto Company, a giant in the agrichemical industry, which has also made such other fine ecological and humanitarian contributions as Agent Orange and PCBs. Through a series of research cover-ups and a network of conflicting interests with government policymakers [see sidebar], Monsanto in 1994 managed to get approval for Posilac, the company’s commercial form of rBGH, which increases cows’ milk production by an estimated 15-25 percent.

According to Monsanto, over a quarter of U.S. milk cows are now in herds supplemented with Posilac. The vast majority of the country’s 1,500 dairy companies mix rBGH milk with non-rBGH milk during processing to such an extent that an estimated 80-90 percent of the U.S. dairy supply is contaminated.

What Monsanto doesn’t tell consumers is that supplementing the American diet with additional growth hormones is causing secondary sex characteristics to appear earlier in young children, particularly girls. Monsanto also won’t tell the public that rBGH-injected cows produce milk with exceedingly high levels of Insulin Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), a cancer promoter that occurs naturally in the human bloodstream at levels that generally do not result in tumors. Monsanto and the FDA refuse to acknowledge recent research directly linking elevated levels of IGF-1 to increased risk of breast and prostate cancer. Going even further, Monsanto and the FDA colluded in 1993 and ’94 to block labeling requirements for rBGH milk. Consequently, the average dairy consumer has no idea if they’re increasing their own risk of getting cancer.

Since 1994, every industrialized country in the world except the U.S. — including Canada, Japan, and all fifteen nations of the European Union — has banned rBGH milk. The United Nations Food Standards Body refuses to certify that rBGH is safe. Even the WTO, or more specifically its food standards body, the Codex Alimentarius, has refused to endorse Monsanto’s claim that rBGH is safe for use in the dairy supply. In the face of facts and the majority opinion of the global political and scientific community, Monsanto and the United States continue to endorse rBGH milk for general consumption, at the same time scratching their heads about increases in breast cancer deaths and the continually declining age of puberty for girls.

What about the Cash Cows?

Okay, so milk is bad for people. Really bad, in fact. But what of the effect on cows producing that milk? The life expectancy of the average cow in natural conditions is about 25-30 years; on the typical factory farm, where well over half of U.S. milk cows reside, they live only four to five years.

The increased milk production spurred by dosing cows with Monsanto’s Posilac causes them to suffer from mastitis, a bacterial infection of the udder, and widespread occurrences of cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus. In addition to harming the cows, these conditions may produce discharges that are passed to consumers along with the milk.

It turns out that keeping dairy cows constantly pregnant — the only way they will produce milk — creates (surprise!) baby calves. The veal industry was created because the dairy industry didn’t know what to do with male calves that otherwise had no economic value to dairy farmers (female calves are the future milk producers). The process is cruel from start to finish: the cows are artificially impregnated by being bound to what the industry terms a “rape rack,”

{{Good grief — see my blog under “the Pit of Despair” and experiments, conducted by a man of course, on monkeys, i.e., Maternal Deprivation results in craziness such that they couldn’t have sex as adults. No problem, this dude came up with a “rape rack,” thereby probably starting the movement against cruelty to animals in laboratories. I kid you not — rape racks?? At what point in time does the process migrate to human beings, who are being treated like lab rats through this system and for $$, to start with? ???}}

then injected with a series of bull semen, hormones, and antibiotics; veal calves are then immobilized in small wooden crates so that they can’t move around, therefore ensuring the tenderness of their flesh when slaughtered. Over a million veal calves were slaughtered in the U.S. in 2001.

In the end, it boils down to a familiar story: Big business and the U.S. government joining forces to dupe the American consumer. The USDA tells us to drink more milk while subsidizing large dairy farms and federally mandating dairy consumption for schoolchildren. The government spends billions to buy unused milk and dairy products, one of the biggest forms of subsidies, while the industry spends almost $200 million every year promoting dairy consumption. Meanwhile, The FDA and Monsanto conspire to pollute the already unhealthful dairy supply with a genetically engineered hormone banned virtually everywhere else in the world.

So while the American public might fairly answer the dairy industry’s ubiquitous question of whether it “Got Milk?” with a resounding, mustachioed “Yes,” the better question might be whether people have gotten screwed in the process.

~ ~ ~ ~

Ché Green is the founder and director of The ARMEDIA Institute, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization focusing on farm animal issues in the United States. http://www.alternet.org/story/13557/

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

(ME TOO, obviously). ..



Read it please. Towards the bottom, is a phrase about “incestuous relationships between Industry and the U.S. Government. . . . advisory boards (FDA) made by scientists and executives from the meat and dairy industries, with a few university executives thrown in for good measure.”

NOW do you see why I’m blogging this?

Of course, in social science, a lot more university academics can be brought in, BUT the funding often comes from some major foundations. Their wealth didn’t come from being middle class employees, typically (maybe originally), but you can be sure that the recommendations for fixing society will recommend the employee route, not the acquiring assets that will spin off some wealth (whether sales, investments, or owning businesses that have profits and almost run themselves) which might leave certain ethnicities time to think about WHY their kids are ending up in prisons, or in school systems which not only underperform, but push food that they might have some innate intolerance to, producing further health problems.

Or become themselves part of the ACADEMIC and CORPORATE food chain, namely the subject matter of experimentation IN social science field and behavioral management fields.

FORCES intent on centralization and eliminating competition MUST be nationalized.

For example, look at the school system.  THIS  is from today:

  1. Many States Adopt National Standards for Their Schools – NYTimes.com

    Jul 21, 2010 Many States Adopt National Standards for Their Schools The common core standards, two years in the making and first released in draft

I am not an Arne Duncan fan.

Below here is more data about MILK questioning WHY we Got’s to have it . . . .

But I think the Monsanto article kinda nailed the situation.   Anyone remember a  reference  to babies and cow’s  milk from the garden of eden?

veggies.jpg (6769 bytes)

KINDA makes me think of CRONE, and the migrations and evolutionary change from agricultural societies to nomadic.

MOST things can be measured more clearly by the profit motive than a psychological diagnosis.  Whatever the excuse for certain economies to work, there have to be forcible consumers.  More and more low-wage workers equals higher profits for the employers.

IF LOS ANGELES ALONE can keep a taxpayer’s rights group tied up in the courts for over a decade, and about a mere $30 million, how would such a mentality with more scope and reach act given authority over an entire nation?

Don’t blame just a President — none of them operates in a vacuum  (although you’ll pick up I am no Obama fan.  I noticed prior to election the Messiah-like claims; Clinton was no different (I voted Obama, incidentally).   Perhaps generations of dumbing us down has taught even the most academic to let their opinions be formed elsewhere.   They study and someone else pays the bills ….)


FIRST OF ALL, in NATURE, who, generally speaking, sucks milk from Mama?

I could be wrong, but generally speaking in Mammals, YOUNG mammals.

Therefore, to fix this, young Mamas should always nurse and not do cow’s milk, right?

Well, not necessarily; it depends on what drugs they are on (none, let’s hope)>

Well, if they don’t abuse drugs, or alcohol, then it’s cool, right?

Not necessarily: as the first article points out, what she eats counts, too. And if she eats cows fed some of the stuff we read about in the last article, or other indirect forms of pesticides and growth hormones, well, maybe not.

And if she’s in a very abusive situation, it’s possible some of the stress hormones (which can really get out of whack) may affect her milk too.

Some of the articles below might make us go “Huh?” and question, along with the concept of eliminating mothers and introducing instead child care workers, as well as the consequences of the dairy industry sucking up to the captive audiences in the school systems, and then we wonder what’s with the behavioral problems, obesity and other things associated with this — and consider which ethnicities in particular, are going to be stuck in the public school systems, we might want to reconsider a thing or two.

After a few articles, I’ll just put up some links — it’s been a long day …. I’LL DO THE LINKING AND YOU CAN DO THE THINKING, if you want to, including how come the nation’s banks and all ages’ of health needs so much regulating that the ship is SINKING.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

FIRST, a little Common Sense from Dr. Kradkjian, whoever he is (I used search function to locate articles on the topic):

Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 – 1800 Sullivan Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA

Text Only

"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a
nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.

. . .

I believe that there are three reliable sources of
information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
literature on the subject of milk.

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
in infants and children as well as infections such as
salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living
mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
that these people are not important for us to study,
consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.


Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
with the drinking of milk after weaning.


Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
another species of mammal?

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
simply is not designed for humans


GOT MILK? What else comes with it:

  • Are you Lactose-Intolerant or Lactase Persistent?

It may depend on “Who’s Your Daddy?


Written by James Heiser
Tuesday, 01 September 2009 15:15

glass of milkDoes the dairy industry tagline “Got Milk?” leave you a little queasy? You’re not alone. A newly published study estimates that 60 percent of adults are lactose intolerant, and the problem is not a food allergy: it’s in your genes.

A USA Today article on the study (“Sixty percent of adults can’t digest milk”) explains the phenomena that is at work: “First off, most people who have bad reactions to milk aren’t actually allergic to it, in that it’s not their immune system that’s reponding [sic] to the milk. Instead, people who are lactose intolerant can’t digest the main sugar — lactose — found in milk. In normal humans, the enzyme that does so — lactase — stops being produced when the person is between two and five years old. The undigested sugars end up in the colon, where they begin to ferment, producing gas that can cause cramping, bloating, nausea, flatulence and diarrhea.”

Retaining the ability to digest lactose is genetically heritable and is found primarily in particular ethnic groups. Thus, in the estimation of the USA Today: “It’s not normal. Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world’s highest percentages of lactase tolerant people. Being able to digest milk is so strange that scientists say we shouldn’t really call lactose intolerance a disease, because that presumes it’s abnormal. Instead, they call it lactase persistence, indicating what’s really weird is the ability to continue to drink milk.”

Presumably, it is the high correlation between Northern European ancestry and the ability of an adult to digest lactose that permits USA Today to label the phenomena as “not normal,” “strange,” and “really weird” — such reckless abandonment of the usual politically correct hand-ringing associated with using such pejorative language in a discussion of any genetic phenomena which correlates to particular ethnicities is almost refreshing.

According to the published study, “Lactase persistence (LP) is common among people of European ancestry, but with the exception of some African, Middle Eastern and southern Asian groups, is rare or absent elsewhere in the world…. It is unlikely that LP would provide a selective advantage without a supply of fresh milk, and this has lead to a gene-culture coevolutionary model where lactase persistence is only favoured in cultures practicing dairying, and dairying is more favoured in lactase persistent populations.”

Essentially, what this means is that a latent capacity for digesting lactose was already present; conditions in certain areas of the world were favorable to passing along this propensity to the next generation and thus it became more common within certain population groups.

According the USA Today article, “The researchers used a computer to model the spread of lactase persistence, dairy farming, other food gathering practices and genes in Europe. Today, the highest proportion of people with lactase persistence live in Northwest Europe, especially the Netherlands, Ireland and Scandinavia. But the computer model suggests that dairy farmers carrying this gene variant probably originated in central Europe and then spread more widely and rapidly than non-dairying groups…. The European mutation is different from several lactase persistence genes associated with small populations of African peoples who historically have been cattle herders.”

Nevertheless, USA Today was able to identify lactase persistence as one more occasion for American and European ‘insensitivity’: “If you’re American or European it’s hard to realize this, but being able to digest milk as an adult is one weird genetic adaptation.”

Dairy & Milk Allergy PDF Print
Written by Dr Manik G Hiranandani
Dairy products & Milk Allergy

Dr. Manik G. Hiranandani

(Modifed 26th September 2005)

Click here for Dutch Translation

I was 16 years old in 1974, just graduated from school and had returned home after 5 years in a boarding school. I was staying at home and was in my first job, to audit accounts for my uncle. As a child I had always disliked milk as it made me feel sick, and had over the years in boarding school consciously avoided milk and its products. My mother insisted I drink 2 glasses of milk every day. Over the next couple of months while auditing my uncle’s bills I discovered a large fraud which was very stressful as it involved the people I was working with.

After 2 months at this, I woke up one morning with severe pain in my right hip. I thought I may have twisted it accidentally but unfortunately over the next week the pain spread to my ankles, knees, toes, back, wrists, shoulders, and jaws. With this, I also began a fever which persisted between 103-104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees C). I was then taken to hospital, where a tentative diagnosis of Rheumatic fever was made and I was admitted to the intensive care Unit (ICU). Over the next 5 weeks the fever rose to 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the pain increased, in spite of all the investigations, treatment and specialists who saw me. I grew steadily weaker till I could no longer walk and my weight dropped from 61 kgs to 39 kg.

That night I overheard the doctor telling the nurse, that I would not live for more than a few days. I then realized that there was nothing the hospital could do for me, and decided to take charge of my own health. The next morning I requested the consultant in charge, to transfer me to a room as I could not sleep in the ICU with the light on. He kindly agreed to do so & I was transferred to a room with two other patients. After 3 days in the room I requested the consultant to discharge me home as all I was doing was eating tablets & my blood was being examined every morning which I could also have done as an outpatient. He kindly agreed to this, gave me a diagnosis of “Stills Disease” or Juvenile Rheumatoid arthritis and as I left, told me that I could take aspirin to ease the pain. Over the next few weeks under his supervision I gradually increased my intake of aspirin to a total of 40 to 50 tablets a day taken 6-8 at a time at intervals of 3 to 4 hours and finally the pain was bearable.

I told my mother that since I didn’t have long to live anyway, I would not have milk and would eat my favourite foods. Over the next few weeks I ate my favourite foods, most of them spicy snacks, and I gradually began to recover my strength and weight. After a few months, I had largely recovered. I moved to Bombay to attend college and stay with my uncle. My aunt with her good intentions to help me recover insisted I restart milk. I did, and within a week was back in agonizing pain and high fever in spite of over 50 aspirins a day. It took me a month to recover and was clinching proof for me that indeed my arthritis was the result of a milk allergy. Over the next 2 years I gradually recovered and tapered off the aspirin. As I recovered I found a great improvement in my physical performance and mental abilities. I concluded that my illness had been a combined result of high stress and the milk allergy.

Over the next 20 years I stayed off milk and its products and enjoyed good health and great clarity of mind. In 1995, I was being entertained by many friends and took a lot of milk products. Soon the pain & fever returned. Fortunately it passed off in a week and was a warning to me that I could never risk taking milk products again!

Dr. Frank Oski, the late Director of Paediatrics, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, wrote a book titled “Don’t drink your milk!” This pioneering book written more than 25 years ago, described in detail, the diseases caused by taking cow’s milk. These included leukemias, ear infections, nephritis, skin problems, diabetes, atherosclerosis, breast cancer, and auto immune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis and scleroderma. He also found that cow’s milk caused gastrointestinal bleeding in babies leading to iron deficiency anaemia. Allergy to cow’s milk is increasingly seen both in adults and children, due to the presence of pesticides and due to the widespread administration of antibiotics, animal residues, growth additives and hormones in the cow’s feed. In contrast people who drink cow’s milk and take milk products, taken from cows which graze naturally on grass in fields, have a much lower incidence of allergy to cow’s milk. With safe inputs to the cow the output (milk) will also be safe. In India, milk allergy is common in big cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Madras & Bangalore where imported milk powder from the European community is used to provide reconstituted milk. Milk allergy in India used to affect less than 5% of the general population in 1990. In my estimation over 50% of people who live in the metropolitan cities of India suffer from health problems caused or aggravated by milk and milk products, beef & gelatin (commonly used to make capsules). Capsules made from gelatin are used commonly to administer antibiotics and vitamins. Many vegetarians are unable to digest this animal protein, and suffer from nausea & diarrhoea because of the capsule. This side effect is wrongly ascribed as a side effect to the use of the antibiotic, and disappears when the same medication is given as a tablet! In the same cities those people who consumed cow’s milk from their local dairy continued to have a low incidence of allergy (less than 5%). With the increasing promotion of commercial fodder, enriched with animal wastes, fish meal, hormones and antibiotics as well as the use by various cooperative milk producing societies, the incidence of milk allergy is rising in other parts of India. This allergy to cow’s milk is normally unsuspected and undiagnosed, and is a common cause of many health problems including stomach pain, peptic ulcers, hyperacidity, hiatus hernia, chronic diarrhoea, Ulcerative colitis, Type1 (childhood onset) diabetes, asthma, eczema, depression, hyperactive or aggressive behaviour, backaches, infertility, endometriosis., ovarian cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis and flatulence.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 21, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Flat-lining Language = Homogenizing America (Part 1: Raw Milk Wars)

leave a comment »


It may not be obvious that I’m talking about the fatherhood initiatives in the family law system, and the concepts that we are just to all get along, and not FIGHT in certain circumstances.  But I am.

Flat-lining is eliminating the depth perspective by commandeering the communication lines (technology, distribution), and restricting the language.  Ideally this is all enough to keep a society (like a machine) in good working order.

But AMERICA is large geographically, and ethnically and culturally kinda diverse.  More effort needs to be put into the training mechanism(s) and to engage  people in monitoring themselves automatically and adopting a common speech with reduced terminology = Ideas Reduction

(think I’m kidding?  Research the background of Dr. Seuss!).

Upstarts that refuse to think properly, or keep getting out of their assigned seats in this virtual classroom, asking impertinent questions, relying on independent feedback to judge themselves, or in general refuse to assimilate, can be sabotaged, or if necessary disciplined — preferably in private.

When this becomes public, further actions will be taken to make an example of them.

This is for society’s good.

One LONG post ahead of you.  Use the scroll button and have fun.  If you want to skip 1/3 of it for later, go to RAW MILK WARS – 1 and RAW MILK WARS – 2 and understand what business government is in.  The middle 3rd will simply flesh out the detail, talking about Water Wars in Los Angeles.

“Few discoveries are more irritating

than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.(1)”

(1) Lord Action, quoted in pg. 57 of Introduction to “The Road to Serfdom,” quoting from “Review Sir Erskine May’s Democracy in Europe [1878] reprinted in The History of Freedom and other Essays,? etc. This Road to Serfdom is edited by Bruce Caldwell, and written by F.A. Hayek , this Definitive Edition co. 2007, the estate of the author (Hayek).

Hayek lived and published this starting between World Wars I and II, being an Austrian immigrant and economist, aware of German ideas of centralized planning, and who (in the London School of Economics) felt that his British compatriots (himself being naturalized) were missing some key points about the concept of a PLANNED ECONOMY, in the war against facism and communism.

Recently I blogged, asking whether it’s Psychology, Color, Gender, or Just Money? What happens when there’s an overlap? I think the point being missed — now, as then — is that in the war on This (or that, or something else) — (today, for an example, I have the MILK wars, good grief) — it’s the techniques of wartime organization used in peacetime that are problematic.

If some of us don’t start waking up to who is causing wars, constantly, neither gender, nor psychological viewpoint, nor color — nor the US $$ — may even matter. I think the critical issue MORE Americans need to understand is that, the issue IS Money. OUr public education system doesn’t, naturally, tell us even a good definition of what money IS. Or Income, or Wealth. Believe me, the people who designed these institutions have a GOOD concept of what those terms mean. The rest of “us” need to better understand what they are, as technology increases the speed of information and with it, change.

In answer to your question on the quote (say WHAAT??), No I do NOT really know who the above people or publications are, except The Road To Serfdom is as interesting as the Raw Milk Wars for what it has to say about the times I live in TODAY. For example, after enough alive years, one knows whether one is on this road or not, and whether a change of direction is indicated. Which, I wish to inform us, it IS.

For example, I resent an administration’s (CLEAR) intent to homogenize ME, or more specifically, MY — and His -CHILDREN — into the word “fatherless” and then load the word “fatherless” with only a negative value.

When someone was booted out of the family home (but NOT the kids life), their lives were on the road to being VIOLENCE-less, at least “domestic” VIOLENCE-less, not FATHER-less. This was vital because they HAD been on the road (along with me, and probably him too, though one never knows with narcissists and other overentitled or (fill in the blank) people) to becoming LIFE-less.

Their father at this point became, it’s true, “NON-CUSTODIAL,” but when you are married and cohabiting custody is a non-issue unless you are experiencing false imprisonment in the process, which I was at times, with varying degrees of drama or lengths of (figurative) leashes.

LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. There IS a descending order of priority in the list, you know. Some people will say a person who died is free from pain, but I’d prefer to continue tolerating a tolerable amount of pain (life has it, right)? while still breathing

So, whether it’s “homo-phobic” or “homogenized,” I care less than what changing language is contributing to people becoming “home-less.”

Or what’s possibly worse, “Thought-less.” Thinking is work and takes practice.

Note: Thinking (writing) and formatting on-line are mutually exclusive activities, at least for me. I’ve erred in favor of the former, and given up on the Quote function on this blog. Try and figure out who’s talking or (for comparison)

Homogenizing America was never a good idea

I come from a generation old enough to remember ITS generation wanting to blend in and forget their ancestry, i.e., I’m half recent immigrant. The other half (by the way) was all-farmer.

Homogenizing and Pasteurizing Milk has become commonplace, in fact the dairy industry is a hot topic (including its subsidies, and pushing MILK through the public schools, even though it may have adverse effects on some ethnicities.

How do I know that? There was a time when our kids were little I couldn’t always afford milk, and couldn’t breastfeed. I wasn’t enamored of “Enfamil” (i.e., putting corn syrup into an infant), its price OR contents, and so asked around and read around.

Right now, Raw Milk has almost been outlawed as potentially “dangerous.” Yet Raw Milk doesn’t have its enzymes boiled out, and when it was standard, the choice was either clean up the dairies, or boil the crap out. Guess which one became standardized.

TODAY’s POST is ONLY going to deal with the Homogenized vs Raw analogy. As usual, it gets pretty interesting, and the teacher part of me just had to share the details. I expect i may get up to 3 or 4 articles on this topic on-line. But keep in mind, I have not forgotten what this blog is about. I just approach it from a few different landing zones for a 3D picture of the issues.

So this post is just some tools for comparison, and hopefully illuminating.

Related, but not about milk:

I have actually waded through some verbiage (cow/farm muck analogy intended) in some of the fatherhood propaganda that DID make “testimony” submissions on time for H.R. 2979. Prior to that, a while back, I labored, painfully and in small print, through a New York site (which I since lost the link to) multi-page VERY fine-print explanation of how helpful the court-ordered, mandatory (etc.) parenting plans were, and what great strides they were making to improving the state’s parenting. I even went through the footnotes. I noticed, apart from everyone footnoting each other, that when they ran out of ideas, they simply began repeating them. MOreover, half the footnotes were themselves “Ibid”s. To conceal how often the SAME source was cited, occasionaly another source would be sprinkled in, after which a bunch more “Ibids.”

I came to the conclusion that the process of “evaluating” and reporting on it was something similar to patchwork quilting, verbally stitching together a whole lot of used fabric into certain motifs in a communal setting – only with less skill and artistry. The communal setting part, though seemed to apply (i.e. social scientists speak each other’s language and resonate to the same rhythm. That’s fine, if it’s not the ONLY one around. The chief feature being, monotony.

Monotony is important if you are trying to run a drill team. It has its place — LIMITED.

The other conclusion I came to, wading through the footnotes on why parenting plans through the court were a great idea, was that I should’ve been paid at least minimum wage for the effort, and wondering what the authors were getting for the same effort of spouting it off, with footnotes. If outlined, the ideas (absent references, which seemed to lend them some authority), condensed and examined without the fluff, sounded ridiculous.

I realize my posts can get monotonous in tone too, but hopefully the interesting links and anecdotes may compensate, particularly today’s. If you don’t like them, go back to a TV (if your culture or house has one) and turn on TMZ (paparazzi headquarters..)

War on Drugs, Terror, Violence, Poverty?

On the Family? On Democracy?

No, it’s the Raw Milk Wars: (Guns ARE involved)


This one is in DailyFinance, and eventually involves a sheriff’s office, which should tell you that it’s possible to have a war over almost ANY concept. The article takes us back to 1977, so it at least covers the timespan in which the Family Law system (feminism/fatherhood) have come into fruition.

Note the religious war and (battle cry of ) Saving the Children references that start the article!

Wherever the battle cry runs to religious topics, dressed up with saving someone vulnerable, we will quickly see that it’s basically about the profit motive, if not plain old greed dressed up in altruism.

I happen to think that the profit motive isn’t bad, of itself; in fact remove it, and the incentive to work with diligence and intelligence (which are “healthy attitudes”) diminishes. It’s in the best interest of all of us for ALL of us to play a role in restricting the influence of greed, though.

In the holy war over raw milk, the lives of our children are at stake, or so the faithful on either side of the battlefield assert. And, if you had been at the Rawesome food buying club on June 30, [2010] when Los Angeles police officers, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Food & Drug Administration {{that’s, L.A, the FBI, and the FDA in case you weren’t awake}} and at least one Canadian agency** knocked on the door, guns drawn, you might believe the war was more literal than figurative. As one Rawesome member said, “Why do you need guns?” when the enemy is, as far as anyone can tell, millions of microbes too small for the human eye to see, and surely, for the man-made bullet to destroy.

**RAW MILK WARS – (2) below is from Canada [by way of Germany] and should not be missed. It’s unclear who ticked off which country first, but clearly these are related. Keep the cursor on the scroll button and don’t miss the Canadian version, which REALLY makes you go “huh? — what’s wrong with THAT”?

The FDA has long banned interstate sales of raw milk, and many states restrict or prohibit the sale of raw milk entirely. Raw milk drinkers and would-be sellers, who had previously purchased raw dairy products through legal loopholes began fighting back in early 2010, filing suit against the FDA claiming that banning interstate sales is unconstitutional. The FDA responded in late April, insisting that “plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” The case is now pending while the crackdowns continue.

What’s wrong with Raw Milk, you might ask? Isn’t it Healthy?

Aren’t Pasteurized Milk Practitioners utilizing the most recent, evidence-based science?

The Raw Milk Debate

Raw milk is milk that has not been heated to at least 145 degrees, a temperature sufficient to kill the living things present in all mammals’ milk. These enzymes and bacteria have been shown to strengthen the immune system, develop healthy bacteria in the intestines and reduce the chances of everything from respiratory disease to obesity. Anything that yogurt manufacturers say about the “good” bacteria in yogurt is also true of raw milk.

Pasteurization, on the other hand, destroys both the good and the bad bacteria (like E. coli); it, along with homogenization (a process in which the fat globules in cream are broken to such a small size that they remain suspended evenly in the milk), allows milk to be transported over great distances and have a much longer shelf life. The widespread use of pasteurization and homogenization meant that dairies no longer needed to deal directly with consumers, as in the days of the milkman delivering glass bottles to your doorstep.

Meaning, a middleman was going to be involved, which might logically (without outside help) affect the prices.

As the FDA sees it, the most important benefit of pasteurization is the virtual elimination of the dangers of bacterial infections. It was a huge concern in the late nineteenth century, as dairies moved closer to cities to provide nourishment for the newly industrial and urban population. But the concentrated quarters of the cows and a change in diet caused disease to start spreading. Pasteurization, say scientists, greatly reduced its spread.

The FDA officially banned interstate sales of raw milk in 1987, but it wasn’t until 2006 that the so-called “crackdown” began.

As with domestic violence, kidnapping, child-trafficking, other crimes, it is the INTERSTATE nature of it that allows the Federal Level to get involved (i.e., jurisdiction). FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation, and the Food and Drug Administration is FEDERAL in nature.

Agricultural departments in several states, with the help of the FDA, started to stage raids of small dairies and buying clubs that were “replete with undercover agents, sting operations, surprise raids, questionable test-lab results, mysterious illnesses, propaganda blitzes, and grand jury investigations,” writes journalist David Gumpert, who has followed the raw milk war and written a book on the topic.

Here’s more indicators it might be HEALTHY not to kill off those enzymes…

A Movement Takes Shape

As early as the 1970s, proponents of healthy eating and sick people in search of cures began to consume raw milk as a health-giving tonic. At the time, Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz (along with cookbook author Sally Fallon) came to the conclusion that drinking raw milk from cows who are raised on a ruminant’s diet — grass, and clover, and not much else — and treated well could be the basis for the most nutritious possible diet — and a movement was born.

Vonderplanitz says he has been “fighting” the government’s efforts against raw milk since 1977. He started an organization known as the Right To Choose Healthy Food, where he’s taught raw foodists {{i.e., what Adam and Eve used to be?… [ : )]}} how they can sidestep the rules governing commerce, and especially interstate commerce, by organizing into private clubs and leasing animals.

Vonderplanitz’s organization also runs the Rawesome Club in Venice, California, and has chapters throughout the U.S. and “a few” in Canada.. . .

Vonderplanitz continued to “just not collaborate and get along” with the government on telling Raw Foodists what they can and can’t eat. No national coalitions to cooperate grants for him (I refer to NCADV, and statewide domestic violence coalitions taking money, though lots less, from the same HHS agency that funds fatherhood grants– another topic, for another day).

When certain groups just won’t “see the light” of their civil rights not existing, there is always force. Clearly this was a major threat to the populace, because here come the Guns:

Guns and Dairy

Shortly after Rawesome opened on June 30, nearly a dozen officers of the LAPD (with guns drawn), a senior investigator for the L.A. City District Attorney; a L.A. Environmental Health Specialist for the Environmental Health Food and Milk Program Food Inspection Bureau; an investigator for the U.S. FDA, Los Angeles District; a consumer safety officer for the USFDA Import Operations Branch Los Angeles District; and a supervising special investigator for the California State Animal Health and Food Safety Services of California Department of Food and Agriculture; and two other individuals without business cards who identified themselves as being with, respectively, the FBI and the Canada department of agriculture loudly knocked on the door, Rawesome members say. The officers searched the premises and seized 17 large coolers of milk and other dairy products.

The search warrant claims that the property “was used as the means of committing a felony.” The only items listed on the search warrant were dairy products. On the same day, a farmer who provides raw goat milk to Rawesome members was also raided by about 20 government agents. Her computer was seized; her third computer, that is, two previous computers having been seized, and never returned, in 2008 and 2009.

Besides listing the agencies involved, Sandi Gibbons, the public information officer for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, would only say that the case was initiated by the California FDA, and that it was “in connection with a continuing criminal investigation involving state and local investigators.”


WOW. In Googling “Los Angeles County Judges Slush Fund” I had a specific, family-law related issue in mind (the shady origins of the idea of Conciliation Courts, and a group (now international) called “AFCC” which began, some of us think, operating under the L.A. County EIN# — i.e. a private group not paying any taxes and funds being used to help rig cases — until it was exposed later by an audit, some of this detailed under (while we’re on the topic of liquid) “johnnypumphandle.com” site” by a father shocked at what happened in his daughter’s custody battle.

However, when it comes to the City of Angeles, and mis-use of $$, it seems we have a range of issues to choose from. For example, given the crimes against humanity, violence, and all sort of bloodshed in the city,one might think this is a priority. But HERE is an issue of the City trying to quietly dodge a taxpayer group proposing that the $30 MILLION in fees derived from water taxes actually be used for the purpose for which it was collected, and, being alert, caught the Mayor and his City Attorney’s Office trying to transfer the 30 million quietly by filing a suit called — for real! — “Los Angeles v. All Persons” and hoping no one would really notice…

As I read it, . . .

DWP Slush Fund

In Los Angeles vs. All Persons, a tough judge makes Villaraigosa return $30 million

On March 25, L.A. Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman handed down a tentative ruling against the city’s practice of skimming 5 percent off the top of Angelenos’ water bills, and slamming city officials for this sleazy move just when City Hall can least afford to give back any ill-gotten funds.

For years, city leaders propped up the general fund with as much as $30 million in revenue derived from an added tax on water used by residents and firms.

So this isn’t about MILK (raw or otherwise) but WATER. Supposedly. Well, $$OMETHING wa$ flowing in the wrong direction in this case, probably why they call it “$lush.”

In 1996, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association crafted state Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which Californians approved to make sure that “revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.”

Wow. THAT’s a radical concept. And one that relates to the topic of my blog, here..

The City fought this, in the courts, for 10 years. After all, $30 million is a pocketful of funds! HJTA fought back. The WAR was on for taxes to be used for the purpose for which taxes were collected. Good for them. But it WAS a fight. The bureaucrats versus the “businesses and residents.”

Los Angeles city officials began expressly disregarding that law, but the Jarvis group kept losing when it butted heads with the city in appellate courts. That is, until 2006, when California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 218’s requirement that fees paid by the public must provide the related service.

Phew! Now that THAT’s settled, they can get back to REAL crime, like Raw Milk Mongering, and the people & who were being billed extra for their WATER can expect some ROI on their taxes, right?

Wrong. These people are SLICK….:

City Hall wasn’t too keen on the ruling. In 2007, knowing that the practice might be deemed unconstitutional, city attorneys under Rocky Delgadillo tried a slick maneuver: They floated an announcement in the obscure Metropolitan News-Enterprise for three days**, stating that anyone opposed to the 2006-2007 transfer of nearly $30 million from DWP water fees to City Hall coffers — where it was spent on anything Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the council wanted to spend it on — had to quickly file as a defendant if they wanted the practice stopped. If no one stood up, the court would enter a default judgment and the transfer of funds would be validated forever

**3 days on accountability for a debated $30 million affecting an entire City.

For comparison, on the OPPOSITE coast, Washington, D.C. House Ways & Means committee, though somewhat more in public, announced for a whole WEEK that a public comment period could be submitted for testimony on the “Hearings on Responsible Fatherhood,” also affecting the expenditure of $$____ million affecting an entire nation, and in cases, and in some cases immediate life and death prospects (i.e., DV issues). What’s with THAT?

Father’s Day, yearly, is sometimes HELL WEEK for noncustodial mothers who’ve lost children to abusive fathers through help from these programs — the majority of us (I’d say) still don’t “get” (or wish to, because it’s disheartening) that those courts are NOT about “justice” but about Ju$t-u$, and the battle is won before the case gets litigated, if it gets there. They are roped into trying to appeal to a judge’s or attorney’s or evalutor’s sense of reason and decency with things like FACTS, and getting frustrated in the process.

I think we all need a healthy dose of antibiotics by understanding how life works, and articles like these give one a general framework into which we can understand at least something of the nature of the opponents and their tactics.

“The [DWP] knew they were vulnerable so they sued the whole city,” essentially suing all residents of Los Angeles, says the association’s president Kris Vosburgh. “They were hoping no one would notice.”

The sly trick failed. The taxpayers’ association jumped in as a defendant in the city’s tellingly titled lawsuit: The City of Los Angeles vs. All Persons.

Two and a half years later, in late March, Judge Freeman whacked the city’s legal arguments, stating bluntly: “The City argues, without authority, that under Home Rule, Proposition 218, a constitutional provision, must give way to its transfer ordinance. However, a charter city’s regulation remains subject to the state and federal constitutions.” Freeman wrote that the movement of huge sums of cash raised by DWP overcharges, then transferred for the use of the City Council and Villaraigosa, was “unconstitutional and void.”

On April 9, the final day to do so, Delgadillo filed a response to the judge’s tentative ruling. Among a long list of reasons why City Hall is still fighting the return of money overpaid by Los Angeles households and businesses was that DWP “has software dating back to the 1970s.” DWP’s chief information officer, Matthew Lampe, estimates $5 million to $8 million is needed just to hire contractors or pay city workers for the months needed to figure out how to pay back the $30 million in overcharges.

DWP argues that it “would have to lease a separate mainframe computer and completely write or modify six computer programs” to return the ill-gotten funds.

Watchdogs argue that there should already be plenty of money available to update computers, as well as power lines and pipes, but Villaraigosa and the City Council use the DWP as an ATM machine. Last year the DWP transferred $175 million to the general fund. It’s going to hurt, badly, to now have to give back $30 million to DWP. For comparison, that’s more than enough dough to fund — entirely, for a year — the city’s Animal Services department, or the entire Planning department or the mayor’s experimental antigang program.

So, can we spell, ‘VESTED INTERESTS’? And, anyone working for this City in the cause of keeping ill-gotten taxpayer funds IS still on salary, most likely, and that salary itself comes from somewhere, most likely including taxpayer funds.

Which explains to me why, if we (whoever the “we” be) are going to clean up the mis-use of taxpayer funds in the FAMILY LAW system, “we” had better figure out a way to sustain ourselves meanwhile, because it looks to be a long, dragged out fight, if not a siege.


L.A. JUDGES SLUSH FUND, EXAMPLE #2, exhibit from 1999

The TOP part of the article deals with the effect of the slush fund on family court cases. This bottom part relates to, incidentally, for example, the (extortion) habit of forcing plaintiffs to pay lunch & tip for Jury & bailiff (??). Just to get a flavor of the enterprise there:

. . . So while the court in Glendale appears to be keeping the jurors and bailiffs fed in a bizarre act of enforced charity, Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti has run into trouble with the $13 million he has been withholding from child-support payments under exotic circumstances. Insight’s May report on this resulted in a lawsuit filed by Richard Fine in the name of John Silva of Sylmar, Calif., an aggrieved parent who has paid child support since 1984 that records indicate was never forwarded by Garcetti to Silva’s children. Fine has just won the right of discovery against the district attorney on his way to forcing disbursement of the huge fund. Although Garcetti tried to get the class-action lawsuit dismissed because, as Fine recalls, “he said he was doing the best he could and therefore we didn’t have a right to sue him,” the judge ruled in favor of Fine and the case continues to move forward.

. . . . “We’ve learned from discovery that they have 100,000 files that date as far back as 1984 involving more than $13 million held by Garcetti,” says Fine. “We’ve got to request that the files be matched up — the payer and payee — and then require Garcetti to distribute the money. This is one of the greatest human tragedies I’ve ever handled. People are knocking on his door asking for money owed to them and he’s basically saying forget it. People have lost their homes and gone hungry and he couldn’t care less. This is a prime example of bureaucratic laziness. If we changed the structure and paid the employees of his department based on the number of cases that got paid, I guarantee that all $13 million would get paid out in 30 days.”

. . . . The California Legislature apparently concurs with these sentiments and recently passed a law, to become effective in 2001, removing the collection of child-support monies from Garcetti and all district attorneys throughout the state. Despite these victories the district attorney still is garnisheeing Silva’s paycheck for alleged child-support arrears for which Silva has receipts from Garcetti’s office. Garcetti’s enforcement personnel refuse to acknowledge Silva’s proof that he paid the support and continue to seize money from his payroll check against an alleged $60,000 arrearage.

. . . . Silva’s monthly payments vary depending on his biweekly income. His take-home pay is approximately $1,200, of which Garcetti often will leave him with $200 to care for a family of four. In fact, two weeks after Silva’s story ran in Insight , Garcetti took all but one dollar of his $1,200 paycheck. Silva didn’t bother to cash the check and soon will file a lawsuit against Garcetti.

. . . . Fine understands what’s happening to the man responsible for the class-action lawsuit that is seeking to stop these practices. “This appears,” he says, “to be retribution. They continue to mess with John because they’re trying to get back at him for filing the suit.”

Copyright © 1999 News World Communications, Inc.

This account is so convoluted — and I’ve actually STUDIED it before- the effort to follow it , the word “labyrinthe comes to mind. I recommend an ATTEMPT to comprehend it. At the bottom, it notes Richard Fine has had some progress, and it talks child support garnishments, and the D.A.’s failure to get the garnished payments TO the recipient, meanwhile a family of four is living on $200 out of a paycheck of $1,200.

For an update on that case, last I heard, Richard Fine wasn’t looked on too kindly in those circles, and had been put in “coercive solitary confinement” (he’s an elderly gentleman) and there is a FREE RICHARD FINE movement. The failed child support collections through the DA’s office has been transferred to a statewide agency, which is just as imprenetrable and unfair as ever (trust me, they’re a factor in most custody cases) and THEIR funds are being diverted to fatherhood type of initiatives, we believe. Which I can document, and which I think makes a good case for BOYCOTTING CHILD SUPPORT ENTIRELY, EVEN IF YOU NEED IT! Keep the system out of your life, especially you’re a parent with kids, because that status can be changed quicker than the support collected from an unwilling contributor, and your kids may get YOUR wages, but you probably won’t see them.



Here’s another Raw Milk Story that we should read, because (though in Canada) it shows you WHY, unrestrained, governments innately WILL want to get things “organized” and monopolize production, restrict initiative, and in general stamp out the competition. THIS version is about a highly qualified German family that came to Canada in 1983, were successful, after which the war began. It also contains the reference to that “pus” which comes when you stress out a cow. The stressed out, overproducing, high-protein fed, work, work work (i.e., make milk) cow has a lifespan of 42 months, it says. Theirs (this family’s) lived about 12 years, because they were allowed to dry out part of each year. Gee, sounds like a principle I read of in an old book, it’s called the Sabbath, both weekly and every 7 years, and farmers should know about it, too. Yep, this one has many analogies to the current topic, I mean, of LetsGetHonest – SOME government policies really stress us out, even if it’s “for our own good” or (since mothers no longer are a vocabulary word in some circles), “for the Well-being of Families.”

The Incredible Story of Michael and Dorothea Schmidt and Real Milk in Canada

by Sally Fallon

[I picked this one because the trouble dates back to 1994, and seems to have been a direct result of their success, via good management and prior experience, training, and in general love for what they were doing. Self-motivation & good management is generally going to threaten governments, who need dysfunction and psychological immaturity in order to justify their expansion, like budgets, beyond the original blueprint justifying their existence.

I cannot force anyone to read this, any more than I can force them to read Andrea Dworkin, Susan Faludi, or actually plow through some of the documentation justifying homogenizing a nation into “Fatherful and Fatherless,” the former being the scapegoat and the latter being the desired state of all children, regardless of where Mama went, or what Papa did to her causing her to go in front of the fatherful children.

But I hope you will. Some things never change, and this type of behavior will seem like “otherwordly” unless you have experienced a variety of it in some other field, like civil rights regardless of gender or marital status.

This expatriate Caucasian/German couple’s “crime” was their success. They were in the “Jim Crow” era of the dairy world in Canada, I suppose.

The owners are Michael and Dorothea Schmidt who purchased Glencolton when they came to Canada from Germany in 1983. Michael Schmidt is an innovator and an activist. He grew up in the Waldorf education system and has a master’s degree in farming. His entire practical training took place on certified organic farms in Germany.

{{I heard that “homeschooling” is illegal now in Germany. In the U.S., some parents who can’t homeschool opt for Waldorf instead, at least as a little less traditional.}}

In 1978 Schmidt started a biodynamic organic dairy farm in southern Germany. This farm became the first certified organic farm with cheese processing facilities and today cheese from this farm is distributed throughout Germany. Three years later, Schmidt helped establish the first biodynamic organic farm in Egypt, supplying breeding stock for dairy cows. Today this Egyptian experiment is a flourishing research center and community farm. In recent years he has helped train Russian farmers in the principles of biodynamic farming and has participated in a research project in China.

Documented success in Germany, Egypt, Russia, and maybe even China. Surely Canada would be open to the idea…

Once in Canada, Michael introduced spelt to North America and participated in joint research projects with Guelph University, offering the farm for annual farm tours for the students from Guelph. He founded OntarBio Organic Farm Products, Inc. and Saugeen Highland meats to market certified organic meat in Canada. He also developed an export market in Europe for about thirty organic farms in Ontario. With the support of the government, he launched the first North American organic baby cereal, SUMMA, with distribution in Canada and the United States. OntarBio was later transformed into a farmers’ cooperative with over eighty members. In 1989, Schmidt helped introduce roadside grazing using 500 to 1000 sheep, for landscaping and to avoid spraying for weeds.

Healthy, Self-sufficient Farms and Cows


The Schmidts’ first cows at Glencolton were black and white Holsteins, the “official” cow of Canada, the breed that produces the most milk and the highest profits in a confinement dairy system. But the Schmidts soon became interested in the Canadienne breed. Descended from the Normandie cow, the Canadienne was the first cow on the North American continent. It is a small cow that can withstand the cold Canadian winters. Her milk is very rich-high in butterfat, lactose and milk solids-making it an ideal milk for cheese.

He sounds like an all-round helpful, intelligent, businesslike kinda guy….even working with some government help, too, and prospering. In some countries, acceptable. But in North AMERICA clearly this spells Trouble, which brings us to the Homogenizing (and Pasteurizing) of Individual Initiatives in FAVOR of Government Regulated Centralized Planning, because the powers that be love us, obviously (take that on faith, if not exactly to the bank…):

Survival of the Fittest

(a.k.a. Worst, Meanest, Dumbest, Most Dishonest,) Institutional Structures to Protect us,


“Why Well-run, Healthy, Self-sustaining Farms and Cows

must be declared a Public Health Hazard, Tarred, Feathered, and Put out of business

(and how this is done)”

NOW, A little biology/banking lessons on cows — bear with me, I’m going to milk the topic for all it’s worth, because it seems clear to me that the desired (US) national landscape is a populace so immature they will constantly be sucking off the government teat, while being taught that their real problem is not enough real men around, which will be fixed by declaring the crisis, scapegoating (alternately, patronizing) the breeders (i.e., female-headed households, “multiple-partner fertility” and poor, particularly black, women on welfare) and trying (thereby) to breed ENTERPRISE out of the country. I call THIS a war on the general populace’s pocketbooks. See, my POV (Point of View) is different. I’m a Mom, although acting on it has become illegal in this country.

Michael’s search for pure breeds sent him to Quebec. The Canadienne is the poor man’s cow. In the early 1900s, government policy forbade grants to farmers who had Canadiennes and no bank would give loans for any breed except Holsteins. Banks love the Holstein, explains Schmidt, because she is expensive to maintain-leading to more bank loans, more debt for the farmer, more worry and more and more emphasis on squeezing the highest level of production out of the original investment. The Canadienne, by contrast, can survive on hay. She has low production but is inexpensive to maintain. In 1987, the Schmidts purchased 12 purebred Canadiennes from a Quebec farmer. Since that time their herd has been closed. They have bred the Canadienne genetics into their original Holsteins, using several Canadienne bulls.

When Michael Schmidt talks about what’s wrong with modern milk production, he begins with a reverent description of the cow. The undomesticated cow produces 1000 to 1500 liters of milk per year. When the cow was domesticated, this amount was increased to about 4000 liters-a number that works out to about 1000 gallons per year-with good nutrition and careful handling.

The cow has four teats which tradition distributes as follows: one for the calf, one for the other animals on the farm, one for the family that lives on the farm and one for families that live in the towns or cities. The output of the cow can be increased to 6000 or even 7000 liters per year without undue stress on the cow and this is as it should be since so many people now live in cities. You can’t keep a cow in a high-rise apartment. Michael Schmidt’s cows are not pushed, however. They give about 4000 liters per year, although the amount varies according to the milker. Europeans hired milkmaids who had lovely singing voices, to coax more milk from the cows and Michael notices that the Glencolton cows give more milk when it’s Dorothea’s turn to do the milking.

But the coaxing songs of the milkmaid cannot compete with modern methods for increasing production. The modern cow, bred for volume and kept in confinement, gives anywhere from 12,000 to 24,000 liters per year. Milk production is pushed upwards with a high protein diet, a diet to which the udder responds with the production of pus. The average life span of the modern factory cow has declined to about 42 months. In fact, she is only bred once, then milked for as long as 600 days. After that, she is shipped off to the butcher. By contrast, the cows at Glencolton Farms are allowed to go dry during the winter and live in excess of 12 years.

I live in California, and from time to time drive by these huge containment lots, where cows are in the open and crowded together by what looks like the thousands, without room to maneuver. You can smell it from far away. One wonders what kind of hormones of stress, if not injected or fed, must be in their bodies, like that. This is compensated for by ads for “Happy Cows” from California, and out of state cows (personified) vying to get here. So what doesn’t go into production, probably DOES go into advertising at least.

Then there is the question of the number of cows in a herd. Currently the Schmidts keep about 30 milking cows in their barn. Confinement operations range from 1000 to as many as 10,000 cows in one location. The high density of a single species makes disease more likely and antibiotics routine. By contrast, the Glencolton cows have had no warble fly for over ten years. Schmidts vet bill for the year 2000 was $500.

Schmidt’s cows feed on lush green pasture from late May to early November. During the winter they receive hay from his own pastures and a supplement of weeds, sticks and herbs, finely ground and all from the farm. He purchases no grain, no feed at all from outside the farm. The modern confinement dairy cow gets all her food shipped in. At best her diet consists of hay and corn; at worst it contains foodstuffs totally unsuited to the cow-bakery waste, soy meal, chicken manure and citrus peel cake loaded with organophosphate pesticides.

There are no old tires on the Schmidts’ farm because Michael does not make silage. Silage is fermented green crop or hay, usually produced in plastic-covered piles, held down by old tires. It’s a well-known fact in Germany, explains Michael, that you can’t make good hard cheese from cows that have been fed silage. In fact, in some districts, such as Emmenthal, silos are forbidden.

The Schmidts’ cows receive water twice a day, at milking time. There are no troughs in the field and none in the main barn-only in the milking parlor. By restricting water, the cow is encouraged to produce more saliva. A cow can produce 30 gallons of saliva per day, and this elixir is the magic substance that breaks down cellulose in grass, twigs and branches.

Good food, high saliva production and small herd size make for superbly healthy cows. The proof, says Michael, is in the manure, which he picks up off the barn floor and shows proudly to visitors. The manure seems to be contained in a silica coating-it is firm and sweet smelling. It also makes wonderful compost.

Obviously this talented couple didn’t really know “what the _ _ C K they were doing as to farms, cows, or grains, and were a hazard to the wider community as will develop later . . . .


Michael and Dorothea’s farm is a biodynamic farm. They follow the guidelines left by the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner who described the farm as a living organism, its vitality created by the effective use of the enlivening forces of sunlight and the symbiosis of the organisms that populate the farm. The basis of biodynamic farming is composted manure and straw, swept out of the stalls at milking time, allowed to break down, then spread on the fields.



The Milk War began in 1994 after the filming of a Canadian Broadcast Company documentary on Glencolton. “It was our own fault,” says Michael. “We should never have agreed to the publicity.” CBC pre-publicity said that the documentary “would shake the entire dairy industry.”

The first battle in the Milk War came two days before the documentary was to be aired. The Owen SoundHealth Unit raided the farm, seizing $800 worth of dairy products. The products were tested to prove that they were unpasteurized but no test was done to find out whether there were any harmful bacteria present. Charges were laid under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. The Owen Sound Health Unit and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board (OMMB) announced that the Schmidts dairy operation was a health threat, but none of the families drinking this risky product was warned by the Ministry of Health that they were consuming something harmful.

In April at a Toronto farmers’ market, officials of the North York Health Unit conducted a raid, supported by two police cruisers, which proceeded to block Michael Schmidt’ van and prevent his leaving. A two-hour search followed but the officials found no dairy products.

Michael’s jury trial occurred in May of 1994. The government argued that raw milk carried all sorts of hazards. Dr. Murray McQuigge claimed that 22 cases of food-borne disease related to the consumption of raw milk had occurred during the past three years. Even farmers who drank raw milk were cited as hazards because they could be carriers of bacteria. One government witness was an undercover agent who had bought butter and milk and had sent a sample to the lab. The results showed high levels of bacteria, but under cross examination it was revealed that the agent had waited six weeks to send in the sample!

The prosecution trotted out all the arguments against raw milk that had been appearing in the Toronto press. Raw milk had no health benefits, said the experts, but was a source of TB, Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Coxiella (which causes Q fever) Streptococci and Staphylococci. Although cases of contamination with VTEC (verotoxic E. coli) have never been linked to consumption of raw milk, that did not prevent health officials from engaging in guilt by association. Officials also cited death of a Peterborough infant who mysteriously died of meningitis in 1984. A panel of medical experts said that the baby caught the bacteria from another baby in the hospital nursery whose mother drank raw milk during her pregnancy!

Many witnesses for the defense presented evidence that raw milk had proven therapeutic for them. They voiced concerns about the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and bovine growth hormones which, although technically illegal in Canada, are smuggled over the border and used in some herds. A number stated that they were lactose intolerant and unable to consume pasteurized milk. Dr. Ken McAlister, a general practitioner, testified that he had never encountered any health problems among hundreds of patients who consumed raw milk He cited a 400-bed hospital in Germany where raw milk was given as a treatment for many serious diseases. The defense noted that 17 American states and all European countries allow the sale of raw milk and raw milk cheese.

Under cross examination Dr. McQuigge, the government’s chief witness, admitted that TB and brucellosis are rare in dairy herds now and that Salmonella is more likely a cause of contamination in meat or eggs than milk. Meningitis has often been traced to contaminated water supply, as was typhoid and other bacterial diseases. Schmidt’s lawyers forced the health department to retreat to the lame argument that “flying birds over the fields might drop E. coli and contaminate the milk.”

The presiding judge said that the verdict would take four weeks but it actually took four months. During this period, the Schmidts continued to provide raw milk. But in August, 1994, the day before the verdict, Michael came out of his barn to the sight of police cruisers. At the behest of one humorless inspector, the police confiscated milk, butter and cheese. Michael convinced them to dump it rather than take it away so at least the pigs would profit.

After the verdict, in which the Schmidts raw milk was found to be a health hazard, there was a civil trial that charged the Schmidts with seven counts, ranging from mislabeling to resistance to the direction of a health officer.

During this period, other damage occurred on the farm, damage that could not be directly laid to health authorities. Milking machines were destroyed and two cows were found dead. The building that housed the cheese equipment was broken into four times. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigated with no results. All they could do was warn the Schmidts not to let their daughters walk to school and to “be careful.”

There was one more official raid in which the Owen Sound Health Unit attempted to remove butter from the Schmidts private cooler. A heated exchange between the authorities and Michael ensued. The authorities left without the butter but the Schmidts were punished for defending their own food against confiscation with more charges.

%d bloggers like this: