Splinter Groups (was: Re: pork question)

[Guest guest]

>>>Hey Suze

I had some additional thoughts to the question you posed yesterday.

I answered the question on a state level as to that was the problem.

Its not. We are seeing a consolidation of the dairy industry into about 3

companies that control about 89% of the milk processing in the country.

***Tim, what are the names of these 3 companies?

>>>>Maybe thats why I get so upset with the infighting I see in this group

and

others I am involved in giving the power over to the big boys instead of

having

a solid front to combat the powers that be.

***Please understand that we are actually *debating* issues that we feel are

actually quite important in regards to educating the consumer. If these 3

companies you mention are so bent on pressuring states to eliminate small

farmers, and particularly raw milk producers, they will have plenty of ammo

with misleading statements from realmilk.com. We are all in this together,

although we each have a unique perspective and experience that we bring to

the table. Our strength IS in our diversity, IMO. We must encourage that

here. We rely on farmers, as well as those who can critically analyze and

improve the accuracy of the educational inof that the WAP foundation

disseminates. There are many fronts on which we must battle corporate take

over of food production and the concommitent decline of food quality.

Educating the public plays a *crucial* role in the battle for consumers to

have REAL food as an option.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>Even if we successfully dig up the references on this elusive study,

find three more that show the same thing, and get a half-dozen anecdotes

from farmers, the bulk of the evidence would still show the opposite.

Unrepresentatively selective use of research information and real-world

anecdotes to prove a pre-conceived notion doesn't do anybody any good.

***YES! This is *precisely* the issue. Thank you for articulating that so

well, . I think any well designed meta analysis of the research on this

subject would inevitably turn up the same conclusion - that calves can and

are being raised to maturity on pasteurized milk, therefore the statement is

misleading at best.

That's not in the best interest of the WAP foundation, or any of us who

supports it.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>Dear Suze

I have been thinking of this for most of the day.

i guess I would contact a friendly representative to keep an eye on the law

makers and dairy code lobbyists.

***That's a good idea, Tim. Ironically, I was thinking " what URL could I

provide my congressman to educate him on the benefits of raw milk? " and of

course I thought " realmilk.com, " but a red flag went up because of the

misleading statement on calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity.

what should I tell him...ignore this statement, but the rest is accurate?

LOL, so now I'm thinking...is there any *other* literature or URLs I can

send him to educate him on the benefits of raw milk? Which seems crazy

because realmilk.com is there for that very reason - to educate about the

benefits of raw REAL milk, but knowing what I know, I feel uncomfortable

recommending it as a source on learning about the benefits of raw milk. Ah

well, maybe I give him too much credit - he may not even notice that

statement anyways...

>>>>Many states are watching Wi right now as to the raw milk issue. We have

gotten state documents that show the conversations between Wi and other

states.

***Please, please tell me if Maine is one of them? I get the feeling we are

one of the more liberal states in regards to the sales of raw milk. In fact

it's the only one on the real milk web site, after CA, that seems to permit

retail sale of raw milk (unless I missed something when I scanned that

page).

>>>>We also have documents that outline the " perceived problems " of the WAP

web site and rawmilk.com as well as other raw milk web sites from the state

and cover

stations of how they want to deal with them.

***Whoa! Perceived problems of the WAP web site? Is there anything you can

share with us? It's one thing when NT/WAPers critique the website (to

improve it) and another when state governments do (to censor it, discredit

it, other?)

>>>>It seems rather insane that this is all over a glass of milk and ones

freedom of

choice, but big dairy interests are dead set to control 100% of the milk

supply.

***Bottom line is king.

>>>>There will not be enough inspectors to inspect any

new or even existing small processing plants, which turn direct producers

out

into the cold and tah dah no competition.

raw milk is easy to pick on given its unfair prejudiced history.

The butcher and the baker are alittle harder to get to, but they are making

progress in this state any way, don't let it happen in yours.

***I'm afraid that's already happening here, at least in the case of

butchers.

>>>>i find it ironic that Bush is so concerned of the threat to the U.S.

form

outside its boarders, we have the most insidious threat right in our own

back

yards.

****I'm beginning to feel that is true more and more each day...

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Hey Suze

They are Land O Lakes, Suiza(swa-za) and Dairy Farmers of America.

there are several companies under each of these companies control which makes up

80 % of the fluid milk in the USA

Suze Fisher wrote:

> >>>Hey Suze

>

> I had some additional thoughts to the question you posed yesterday.

> I answered the question on a state level as to that was the problem.

> Its not. We are seeing a consolidation of the dairy industry into about 3

> companies that control about 89% of the milk processing in the country.

>

> ***Tim, what are the names of these 3 companies?

>

> >>>>Maybe thats why I get so upset with the infighting I see in this group

> and

> others I am involved in giving the power over to the big boys instead of

> having

> a solid front to combat the powers that be.

>

> ***Please understand that we are actually *debating* issues that we feel are

> actually quite important in regards to educating the consumer. If these 3

> companies you mention are so bent on pressuring states to eliminate small

> farmers, and particularly raw milk producers, they will have plenty of ammo

> with misleading statements from realmilk.com. We are all in this together,

> although we each have a unique perspective and experience that we bring to

> the table. Our strength IS in our diversity, IMO. We must encourage that

> here. We rely on farmers, as well as those who can critically analyze and

> improve the accuracy of the educational inof that the WAP foundation

> disseminates. There are many fronts on which we must battle corporate take

> over of food production and the concommitent decline of food quality.

> Educating the public plays a *crucial* role in the battle for consumers to

> have REAL food as an option.

>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi again Suze

No maine isn't is in the equation yet.

WAP problems exsist only in the minds of the state due to the truth of the web

site and the lack of control the state has over the truth in nutrition.

Their is nothing wrong with it as we see it, only the fact that it speaks the

truth.

and as for the realmilk web site, it is so big at this point i would not give

the calf milk question much worry, I doubt they would find it unless they are

former farmers and most former farmers wouldn't dream of feeding calves

pastuerized milk.

If they did feed pastuerized milk to calves, you won't get anywhere with them

anyway.

Tim

Suze Fisher wrote:

> >>>Dear Suze

> I have been thinking of this for most of the day.

> i guess I would contact a friendly representative to keep an eye on the law

> makers and dairy code lobbyists.

>

> ***That's a good idea, Tim. Ironically, I was thinking " what URL could I

> provide my congressman to educate him on the benefits of raw milk? " and of

> course I thought " realmilk.com, " but a red flag went up because of the

> misleading statement on calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity.

> what should I tell him...ignore this statement, but the rest is accurate?

> LOL, so now I'm thinking...is there any *other* literature or URLs I can

> send him to educate him on the benefits of raw milk? Which seems crazy

> because realmilk.com is there for that very reason - to educate about the

> benefits of raw REAL milk, but knowing what I know, I feel uncomfortable

> recommending it as a source on learning about the benefits of raw milk. Ah

> well, maybe I give him too much credit - he may not even notice that

> statement anyways...

>

> >>>>Many states are watching Wi right now as to the raw milk issue. We have

> gotten state documents that show the conversations between Wi and other

> states.

>

> ***Please, please tell me if Maine is one of them? I get the feeling we are

> one of the more liberal states in regards to the sales of raw milk. In fact

> it's the only one on the real milk web site, after CA, that seems to permit

> retail sale of raw milk (unless I missed something when I scanned that

> page).

>

> >>>>We also have documents that outline the " perceived problems " of the WAP

> web site and rawmilk.com as well as other raw milk web sites from the state

> and cover

> stations of how they want to deal with them.

>

> ***Whoa! Perceived problems of the WAP web site? Is there anything you can

> share with us? It's one thing when NT/WAPers critique the website (to

> improve it) and another when state governments do (to censor it, discredit

> it, other?)

>

> >>>>It seems rather insane that this is all over a glass of milk and ones

> freedom of

> choice, but big dairy interests are dead set to control 100% of the milk

> supply.

>

> ***Bottom line is king.

>

> >>>>There will not be enough inspectors to inspect any

> new or even existing small processing plants, which turn direct producers

> out

> into the cold and tah dah no competition.

> raw milk is easy to pick on given its unfair prejudiced history.

> The butcher and the baker are alittle harder to get to, but they are making

> progress in this state any way, don't let it happen in yours.

>

> ***I'm afraid that's already happening here, at least in the case of

> butchers.

>

> >>>>i find it ironic that Bush is so concerned of the threat to the U.S.

> form

> outside its boarders, we have the most insidious threat right in our own

> back

> yards.

>

> ****I'm beginning to feel that is true more and more each day...

>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 08:27:13 -0500 Clearview Acres <clearvu@...>

writes:

<snip>

If you want to get picky about it why is the milk so bad to begin with,

that

pastuerization wether it is the liquid product or calf starter is needed

at

ALL!!!!!!!

*****I don't think this is being picky but rather a legitimate question

and, for my money, the crux of the matter. But there are many reasons,

political and economic, why milk is pasteurized. And in the case of

humans, hardly any real legitimate health reason for such a procedure.

But just as pasteurization was initially opposed in this country for

*economic* reasons, so now is unpasteurization opposed for *economic*

reasons, a fact that is easily discovered once you get heavily involved

in this issue.

So the milk is poor quality to begin with, then kill it, and feed it

soley to

a calf for X number of weeks it will die as well as you!!!

*****how true.

<snip>

By all means open the box to scrutiny, but good luck gett'in the cat back

in

once you realize the scope of the issue.. if you ever attain it..

and while you are trying to catch the perverbial cat, a small portion of

the

industry is looking at our group and the WAP site looking to improve the

quality of their dairy herd and its resulting product and see a bunch

nonfarmers trying to debate an issue on the wrong side of the coin.

****I'm not sure what your point is here and I have not participated in

this thread until now, but I doubt anyone who really matters is paying

attention to the musings on this website about pasteurized milk and

calves - but I could be wrong.

The dairy and food indusrty giants will love it for they like to see

splinter

groups which takes away from the whole.

*******Again, I doubt we are a blip on anyone's radar screen.

I really wish I had the time to debate this with you but I am trying

desparetly to win a raw milk case in Wi that will effect the whole nation

as

to wether you nit- pickers can get your milk you so love to fight about.

Spend the time to contact your Reps in State government and keep the milk

flowing. Spend time in your slinter groups and soon you will be S.O.L.

for

milk.

*****Lots of raw dairy cases over the years around the country. Sometimes

we win and sometimes we lose. But every time the gov't legislates against

us the market comes up with another end run around their intrusive

tactics. Sometimes the solutions are expensive and sometimes they are

not, but each " case " is just one more skirmish in the battle for food

freedom in this country, and no one particular case is the be all and end

all. And as it currently stands it looks like the gov't is winning since

raw dairy is very difficult if nigh impossible to obtain at retail. But

things often do change, and you push people far enough it is not uncommon

for an unintended backlash to occur.

Just some thoughts...

<snip>

Those who know are dead and they ain't talk'in.

Any book written in the past 60 years on current feed rations don't even

come

close to that an animal was 100 years ago and the expectations that was

considered normal for healthly long living animals.

Have a nice day..

Tim

Clearview.

******Well you will get a hearty amen from me on this point.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:11:26 -0500 Clearview Acres <clearvu@...>

writes:

Dear Suze

I have been thinking of this for most of the day.

i guess I would contact a friendly representative to keep an eye on the

law

makers and dairy code lobbyists.

******Hi Tim,

I am very much enjoying your posts as I try to catch up from the last

couple of weeks. Keep up the good work. I do have a question though, why

would a " friendly " representative keep an eye on the law makers and dairy

code lobbyists? Seems to me a representative would be most friendly to

those who could help insure his/her tenure in office. I'm sure the dairy

lobbyists would fit into that category.**********

Many states are watching Wi right now as to the raw milk issue. We have

gotten

state documents that show the conversations between Wi and other states.

We also have documents that outline the " perceived problems " of the WAP

web site

and rawmilk.com as well as other raw milk web sites from the state and

cover

stations of how they want to deal with them.

*****This has been going on for many many years. The difference is that

today state gov'ts are feeling their oats because of tobacco and

Microsoft and their " apparent " success in those two areas. I have talked

at length with a number of legislators and they are feeling like this is

their chance to impose their agenda across the board. They are visibly

failing in the gun arena but junk food is next on their agenda.

As I tried to point out in another thread none of this is isolated, it is

all a part of the same cloth and therefore we should not be surprised

when they crack down our choices, which they perceive as unhealthy.

Imagine being charged with a crime for selling " bad " fat, but there are

people who would go to the mat to protect their *own* freedom of choice

as to their foods, but wouldn't bat an eyelash at the gov't emasculation

of a " bad " fat producer because they happen to agree with the gov't. Such

myopia as to the underlying issues of freedom are a recipe for

disaster.***************

It seems rather insane that this is all over a glass of milk and ones

freedom of

choice, but big dairy interests are dead set to control 100% of the milk

supply.

*******Of course we are not just talking about a glass of milk but the

much larger issue of freedom of choice, so from that perspective it is

not insane at all. But there is only one entity in this country that has

the ability to *enforce* the curtailing of your freedoms, and it ain't

" big dairy " - its " big gov't " ********

We have had direct information from those connected with the big boys and

their

attitude towards us.

I'm sorry to report Organic Valley(cropp) is one of them.

******This doesn't surprise me at all. Organic Valley, like many

corporate interests, is trying to find a non-market way to limit their

competition so as to earn greater profits. Nothing new. People and

groups, big and small, are always trying to do this. But here's the

problem. Why do these folks, almost without exception, look to the gov't

to make this a reality? Simply, because without the strong arm of

government, it doesn't matter one iota what the " big boys " attitude is

toward you. As I said earlier, you got a problem, but it ain't " big

dairy. "

<snip>

Also any contrary info of the safety of raw milk must be shown as a base

of

about 3 documents that have been passed around and altered slightly to

give the

impression that many source report the same out come when in fact many

sources

are repeating the same false information.

******no doubt

As for direct help in my state, we are doing what we can and seem to be

making

progress but a massive state budget shortfall has thrown a wrench into

the gears

of progress.Now it is not enough that big business is pressuring state to

remove

any competition for them it now expects the department of ag to gut the

staff

and basically get rid of the watch dog arm of the Ag department which

will

inturn give them free reign on plant safety or the lack of it, and the

death

nail of the small processor. There will not be enough inspectors to

inspect any

new or even existing small processing plants, which turn direct producers

out

into the cold and tah dah no competition.

*******A massive budget shortfall would be a good thing, since it helps

limit " big gov't " and its invasive power to make our lives quite

miserable. Now what about " big dairy " who is pressuring the state? They

can be gutted too. How? Well if the state ag department is gutted (a good

thing) and there are not enough dairy inspectors (another good thing)

then we need only to go one step further and abolish by law gov't

involvement in the dairy industry *whatsoever*.

The only reason the direct producers will be turned out in the cold and

the " big boys " left with no competition is because of the *state laws*

requiring dairy inspection (which they presumably couldn't/wouldn't do

for the direct producer if they had a limited staff). Get the state out

of the food business, and many more direct producers can stay in the

food business. Your problem here is not the " big boys " but state

regulation of the dairy industry in the first place.

raw milk is easy to pick on given its unfair prejudiced history.

The butcher and the baker are alittle harder to get to, but they are

making

progress in this state any way, don't let it happen in yours.

Also watch out for all the 911 related food safety reforms, it is a smoke

screen

to remove your choices, and end your freedoms.

*****And who exactly is *removing* your choices. Answer that one and you

will be at the *source* of your problem.

i find it ironic that Bush is so concerned of the threat to the U.S. form

outside its boarders, we have the most insidious threat right in our own

back

yards.

Corporate america.

*******Hmmmm....since they are the one's with the power of enforcement,

how is it that gov't is *not* the problem and corporate America is? Seems

to me the concern ought to be with Bush and company, since they are the

one's actually removing our freedoms, not with those who try to buy and

peddle influence.

for what its worth....

Bianca