I read an article from on old periodical that I have, about raw milk. In the article the author is invited to a convention on healthy food practices, and interacts with the government bodies that participate in the regulation of food practice in America.
As he questions some of the research , the methods and approaches used in the studies that determined the beliefs propagated to the public as guide lines of what is good and bad, he is met with one response from a government official that is meant to disallow further consideration on the topic.
The official basically says that the research has already been done years ago. End of statement.
Oh, the research is there, and its determination already accepted, therefor no need to re-look at what was done, no need to, perhaps, scrutinize what the government has promoted. This is a tactic to eliminate, and another argument for this is that the cost of re-looking at past research and studies is too high. There are other issues that are more important at the moment.
It has gotten to the point where, when I hear these kinds of things being said , the red light goes off. Anything that has any movement that is of avoidance, that is not openly discussed is something that cannot be used in support of the subject is suspicious and needs to, by the desire to omit, be brought out into the open.
If a study or research is being used to support a decision then that study and that research needs to be present and clearly understood. Omission is another form of lying. Superficial scrutiny is against full disclosure. Any politician or business that utilizes such practices, know full well what they are doing, knows full well that they are omitting, knows full well that they are not disclosing all the details. The very presence of denial, as a tactic is the reflection that they are aware of the implications of what it is they are not wanting to be made known.
In the case of this article the studies had looked for detrimental pathogens in raw milk. The raw milk used had come from factory farms where the cows were not pasture fed, were confined. To study raw milk from cows that are not healthy, that are pumped up with any number of drugs, that live in environments that do not have to be as clean as they could be because, of yes, the milk will be boiled to death and all pathogens killed is a false study. It really means that large corporate dairy concentration camps can’t get away with selling their product raw because their cows are sick, and weak and full of disease. The study was probably done this way because the big corps. wanted to jump of the band wagon but realized they could not, so ban ban ban.
OK, so I am becoming impassioned, but there is some common sense here.
Meanwhile, present studies of farmers – where the cows are healthy, the farms clean, the cows doing what cows, as ruminants, are at ease doing; grazing- of raw milk have turned up no detrimental pathogens, these ( at the time ) ongoing studies revealed that the raw milk from these farms was safe and clean.
Oh, but the studies have already been done.
This is all just a sick and insane game for profit. People are not considered, cows are not considered, even the practice of fixing nitrogen into the soil, that ruminant grazing supports, is not considered- in this the earth is not considered.
Is any of this disclosed to the consumer when they purchase the milk from the big dairies in the supermarket?
Investigate the practices of our present system and realize that which includes all, that which considers all that is here that is life. Stop avoiding, stop sticking your head in the sand. Stand as all as one as equal. Allow the world to BREATH, allow yourself to breath.
Discover self, join the Desteni I Process
Support an EQUAL MONEY SYSTEM.