RE: Another Raw Milk Concern

[Guest guest]

At 12:17 PM 5/5/02 -0700, Alec wrote:

>

>I have noticed that all the available raw milk comes in clear glass bottles

>and even pasteurized non - homogenized milk comes in clear glass

>bottles.  The problem with that is that sunlight is very damaging to

>milk.  But it is not just sunlight. Most stores use florescent lights in

>the refrigerator cases.  The florescent lights emit wavelengths that are

>also damaging.  This isn't new. 45 years ago when my parents had milk

>delivered it came in dark brown bottles (which was a disappointment when I

>found out it wasn't chocolate milk).  So far I have not bought any raw milk

>but have bought raw cheese.

>

This came up here a while back where I'd read magnesium was destroyed in milk

that was in clear containers. The fluorescent lights were the culprit. This is

known as waxed cardboard half gallons list magnesium in the nutrition panel

and

clears don't have it. Aestetically clear is more familiar as the friendly

neighborhood milk man used even though the lights have changed. I can't be in

fluorescent lighting for longer than an hour.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> This came up here a while back where I'd read magnesium was destroyed in

milk

> that was in clear containers. The fluorescent lights were the culprit.

This is

> known as waxed cardboard half gallons list magnesium in the nutrition

panel

> and clears don't have it.

Since this came back up, I'll take a stab at it.

Food labelling laws don't require that certain nutrients be listed. Some

manufacturers *choose* to list nutrients that they're not required to.

Hardly any foods choose to label magnesium content any more. The difference

between the two milks was because of choice not because the magnesium would

have been destroyed in the one. I'm confident on that point because food

labelling doesn't generally take into account nutrient loss due to

processing other than what's lost due to heating...so even if processing and

or time on the shelf would cause a nutrient to deteriorate, the label

wouldn't generally reflect that reality.

Also, minerals don't get destroyed by light...it's not chemically possible

for that to happen. If it occurs as part of a complicated molecule such as

a protein, it could theoretically be altered so as to be unavailable for

absorption, but that wouldn't be recognized by food labelling. Labels

reflect whether a particular thing is in the food...not whether we can

absorb them. It's much more likely that you're remembering that the

vitamins in milk are destroyed by light...which they are. If you're

absolutely sure that it was magnesium, then the source was probably

wrong...maybe it was a misprint? I can't remember for sure which vitamins

are supposed to be destroyed by light...although I think vitamin A was one

of them.

Land O Lakes and some of the others such as Kemps have started using opaque

plastic bottles because of the vitamin destruction issue...or I should say

because of the opportunity to further differentiate their product by solving

a perceived problem. After all, I'm sure they couldn't care less whether

the vitamins are actually in their product when it's consumed by the

customer.

[Guest guest]

At 12:40 PM 5/6/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Land O Lakes and some of the others such as Kemps have started using opaque

>plastic bottles because of the vitamin destruction issue...or I should say

>because of the opportunity to further differentiate their product by solving

>a perceived problem.  After all, I'm sure they couldn't care less whether

>the vitamins are actually in their product when it's consumed by the

>customer.

>

>

Hood has gone to opaque around here for gallons. I do know when I checked it

though it was the same milk processor and label with no magnesium listed on

clear gallons and magnesium listed on cardboard. Go figure...at the time that

verified it for me. Maybe magnesium isn't seen as so significant with vitamins

A & D and calcium being the biggest additives.

Wanita