The Jewish Rothschild family advocated for the banning of raw milk in the UK in the 1940s. ALWAYS DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE JEW TELLS YOU.

[einzigartig]

Dnr

stfu fag

 

[Red Fox]

Is it true pasteurized milk has no vitamins or close to no actual calcium?

No that’s wrong. Highly pasteurised milk (which is good for months not in the fridge. Available in Europe) has less but not normal pasteurised milk (good for like 10-14 days, needs to be refrigerated) is ok

 

[ReinhardRacist]

stfu fag

Darkbluecel

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Raw milk is probably the most beneficial thing for good oral health
So with raw milk dentist industry would be finished

 

[einzigartig]

Darkbluecel

xd

 

[ReinhardRacist]

xd

Faggot

 

[einzigartig]

Faggot

proof me that i am a faggot then?

 

[manletfuel]

Spoiler: Verdict

PASTEURIZATION OF MILK.​

HL Deb 10 April 1946 vol 140 cc643-75 643
§ 2.41 p.m.

§ LORD ROTHSCHILD rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to 644 the urgent need for compulsory pasteurization of milk in as many parts of the United Kingdom as is practicable; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in spite of your Lordships' well-known indulgence towards beginners, I imagine there are few who do not feel considerable apprehension on the occasion of their maiden speech in this Chamber. I feel this particularly because there are so many noble Lords who are better qualified to speak on the Motion in my name than I am. Nevertheless, I am fortified to a certain extent by the fact that the Motion has the backing of a number of learned institutions such as the British Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Joint Tuberculosis Council, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians.

§ It will not be necessary for me to say much about the benefits of pasteurized milk or, as it is known in these days, heat treated milk. Your Lordships are aware that a large number of people die each year through drinking milk contaminated with the bovine tuberculosis germ. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics, but will merely mention that if all the members of this House were killed twice a year—and I think your Lordships will agree that this would be a matter of some gravity—the number of deaths would be of the same order as that caused in the United Kingdom by drinking raw milk contaminated with the germ of tuberculosis. I need not remind your Lordships that the number of casualties from this germ far exceeds the number of deaths; but no precise figures are available to me on this point, though the number of casualties has been estimated at about five times the number of deaths. If we put the number of deaths per year at 1,600, the number of casualties will be between 7,000 and 8,000. These casualties, which require months of hospital treatment, are a source of misery and anxiety to their families and grave expense to the State.

§ Of course tuberculosis is not the only disease caused by drinking raw milk contaminated with germs. Undulant fever claims an unknown number of victims each year—un-known because it is a difficult disease to diagnose—while outbreaks of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, dysentry, food poisoning, scarlet fever, and diphtheria 645 are known to be caused from time to time by the drinking of raw milk. During the war, well authenticated milk-borne examples of each of these diseases were reported in the medical Press. Possibly the noble Lord who replies for the Government may be able to tell your Lordships if there have been any outbreaks of disease caused by drinking contaminated raw milk in the United Kingdom during 1946.

§ It would appear obvious from the few words I have said that considerable benefits would accrue to the population of this country by removing a perfectly clear cut source of disease and death from the population's milk; and on the assumption that this side of the case is not in dispute, I will turn to the other side which concerns the arguments put forward by the opponents of pasteurization. May I say at the start that I neither can nor shall attempt to deal with the economic aspects of this matter? Your Lordships are well aware that one of the criticisms of any scheme involving the compulsory pasteurization of milk in the United Kingdom is that it will have an adverse effect on the small producer-retailers. Your Lordships may have something to say about the relative merits of killing off numbers of the population each year and maintaining the economic interests of a relatively small section of the community, though the words "as far as is practicable" in my Motion indicate that I appreciate the difficulties of extending any scheme of heat treatment to special or rural parts of the country. If I may, I shall return to the question of the producer-retailer later.

§ The first objection with which I shall deal is that pasteurized milk tastes nasty, metallic, or at any rate different from raw milk. When I say to your Lordships that this is untrue, you will treat my statement with the same scepticism as the original statement that pasteurized milk tastes nasty. Your Lordships will require scientific or legal evidence one way or another. Such evidence could be obtained by submitting samples of raw and heat treated milk to some cross section of the community and seeing whether the members of this cross section could distinguish between the two types of milk more often than someone guessing or drawing the answer blindfold out of a hat. Your Lordships would decide one way or another on evidence of this type and not 646 on unsubstantiated statements of mine or anybody else. These experiments have in fact been done and Show without a shadow of doubt that an overwhelming number of persons are totally unable to distinguish between raw and heat treated milk. Of course if the milk is not pasteurized properly and, for example, is boiled, it is quite easy to tell the difference, but we must, I think, assume in the argument that the Government would not institute an incompetent scheme of heat treatment.

§ So much for the non-existent difference in taste. Another objection often raised is that pasteurization takes what is called "the life" out of milk. This phrase is a difficult one to deal with because it is so vague. In so far as heat treatment takes the life out of the noxious bacteria which are so often present in our milk, it is of course true, but I doubt whether those who put forward these statements mean them in this sense. It is more likely that they infer that some essential nutrient substances are removed from the milk by the process of pasteurization. It is true that minor changes are brought about in the composition of the milk, but numerous investigations on rats, calves, and human beings, carried out in medical, veterinary, and agricultural institutions in this country and in Scotland, have shown conclusively that such changes have no appreciable effect on the nutritive value of the milk. According to the Director of the National Institute for Research in Dairying, which your Lordships are aware is the most important Institute of its type in the United Kingdom, the difference in composition between raw and heat treated milk has been found in fact to be less than that between samples of raw milk taken from different herds.

§ Though milk is one of nature's best foodstuffs, it is by no means a perfect one, and no one can live exclusively on milk without additional minerals and vitamins. Consequently the fact that a certain amount of these substances is removed by heat treatment is of much less significance than the opponents of heat treatment would have us believe. The opponents of pasteurization—and many people who have fallen victims to their propaganda—sometimes say that pasteurization will remove the incentive to clean milk. Such criticisms display a 647 lack of understanding of the difference between clean and safe milk, and also impute a somewhat alarming degree of ignorance to the Government in imagining that if compulsory pasteurization were introduced, the Government would remove the existing regulations about the cleanliness of milk. The regulations about the cleanliness of milk are directed towards preventing milk being contaminated with dust, blood, water, cow dung, and milk-souring bacteria, all of which at one time were an almost natural constituent of milk in this country. Heat treatment, on the other hand, is intended to destroy disease-producing germs. Though it may render milk safe for human consumption, heat treatment cannot render dirty milk clean. Both clean milk and heat treated milk are desirable for different reasons.

§ The opponents of pasteurization also say that it destroys the need for the T.T. and attested herd schemes. Here again there is a lack of understanding of the objectives of the schemes. The T.T. and attested schemes are directed towards improving the health of our cattle as well as towards producing germ-free milk. The heat treatment of milk is directed primarily towards improving the health of our population and reducing the unnecessary number of deaths each year. Quite recently in this country an outbreak of dysentery occurred and was traced without a shadow of doubt to milk from a tuberculin-tested herd. There is nothing extraordinary in this as T.T. milk is always exposed to the possibility of contamination after the milk has left the cow, and we shall never be able to prevent farmhands, and others concerned with the milk, from unwittingly being carriers of disease But suppose we accept the risks that caused this recent outbreak of dysentery; even then, it will take many years for a high percentage of our cattle to become attested or to produce T.T. milk. Experience in the United States, where a costly slaughter policy has been combined with a T.T. herd scheme, makes it clear that it would take a minimum of twenty-five years for an important percentage of our cattle to come into this class, and I doubt if we shall be prepared, or even able, to slaughter cattle on the scale that has been done in the United States. Twenty-five years means many unnecessary 648 deaths and very many unnecessary casualties. Your Lordships may agree with me that anyone who says that the T.T. and attested schemes can achieve what we need in a comparatively short space of time must produce good evidence for such a statement if it is to carry conviction.

§ I now come to the criticism which the opponents of pasteurization put forward with a success which only real nonsense seems able to engender. These gentlemen say: "If we take all the noxious germs out of milk, we shall be preventing the population from acquiring a natural immunity to disease." Your Lordships may agree with me that the cost of this immunity, even if it existed, is somewhat high, and one that might not appeal to the mothers of children who have died from bovine tuberculosis. But apart from this, why do we not drink water contaminated with germs of enteric fever or any of the other diseases that are sometime carried by water? Are we not incurring a very grave risk in accepting the dicta of Ministries of Health of every political shade, of local authorities, of the medical profession, of scientists, or even of the ordinary man? This frightful risk in which most of us are involved by drinking pure water, is one which we appear to sustain with comparative equanimity and impunity. I wonder why a different view is taken by some people because we substitute the word "milk" for the word "water." The truth is, my Lords, that this argument, though on occasions it appeals to those who have not thought much about it, is one that is sufficiently illogical, if not vicious, to be rejected out of hand.

§ There are three objections to pasteurization which are more serious than those to which I have already referred. The first concerns the possibility that the institution of compulsory heat treatment would not only put small producer-retailers out of business, but would reduce the nation's milk supply. Of course if the Government were to pass some totalitarian Bill making it illegal to sell any form of milk anywhere in the United Kingdom which was not pasteurized, this would be the case. But my Motion is not worded in this way, and nobody in his senses would attempt such a measure. I submit to your Lordships that the compulsory institution of heat treatment in towns, shall we say with a population of 649 more than 20,000, would have no effect whatsoever on small producer-retailers; and, so far from reducing the nation's milk supply, it might well cause an increase. During the war literally thousands of gallons of raw milk were poured down the drain as unfit for human consumption, and it was this fact which caused the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to institute the heat treatment of milk as an urgent measure, thereby saving the nation thousands of gallons. I do not know whether any raw milk is poured down the drains nowadays, but if by any chance it is perhaps a similar saving would occur if the Motion in my name were adopted.

§ May I repeat that the institution of compulsory pasteurization in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants need have no effect on the little man and the producer-retailer? It is no answer that about 70 per cent. of the nation's milk is already pasteurized. This is not a matter for satisfaction at all when we remember the number of deaths and casualties each year from the other 30 per cent. A further serious objection that might be raised is that heat treatment equipment would have to be bought in the United States and would therefore cost dollars, which we either do not have or cannot spare for this purpose. The Dairy Engineers' Association, of which most of the firms who make heat treatment plant are members, inform me that not one screw for this equipment would have to be bought in the United States.

§ Finally, I must I think mention an objection to pasteurization which I put into the serious category though some of your Lordships may feel it hardly merits this treatment. I refer to that type of person who knows from personal experience and observation that the earth is flat and not round, and who say such things as: "What nature produces is good enough for me, so better not tamper with it; it might be dangerous; I like my milk raw." Your Lordships will be well aware that the idea of not tampering with nature is apt to get one into difficulties from time to time. When one is dying of pneumonia one must not tamper with the course of nature by administering penicillin. One must not tamper with nature during an acute attack of appendicitis by having an operation. Or even if one were to be so unwise as to allow an operation to take place, one must not tamper with 650 nature by administering an anæsthetic. If anyone were fortunate enough to get hold of a steak in the future, one must not tamper with nature by cooking it. As a whole we tolerate the peculiar activities of cranks and eccentrics with a certain affectionate amusement, but when they affect the lives and health of the people of our country, I think we should give up this tolerance and at the same time explain to the uninformed why.

§ When one ponders over the various methods we have of killing off our dwindling population, one cannot help returning to the melancholy spectacle of road deaths, and one cannot help being thankful that committees constantly sit and discussions constantly go on to devise methods of solving this tragedy. But in the case which I submit to your Lordships there is no need for committees and little need for lengthy deliberation. The committees have sat; tie deliberations have taken place, and In fact schemes have already been set out—I referred to the one of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, during the war—for introducing cornpulsory pasteurization. The exigencies of the war were doubtless responsible for the shelving of the noble Lord's scheme. The exigencies of the peace make the institution of compulsory pasteurization an urgent necessity. Any Government which does not implement such a scheme, or at the very least accept the principle for large towns must, in my respectful submission, incur a large share of responsibility for the death and disease which result each year from the people of this country continuing this ill-advised and unnecessary practice of drinking unpasteurized milk. I beg to move for Papers.

§ 3.0 p.m.




§ 3.22 p.m.




§ 3.45 p.m.




§ 4.4 p.m.




§ 4.11 p.m.




§ 4.21 p.m.




§ 4.25 p.m.







§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dnrd

 

[Krakowski]

I think the main reason they tried banning raw milk was so they could get a monopoly / oligarchy on milk products through their milk company / companies

Rather than the "muh jews want to make people sick"

But it's probably a combination of both

 

[Deleted member 29747]

Okay, sorry for being rude. Basically you need to produce enzymes and bacteria to digest food. But raw unfrozen meat (any raw animal product) already has enzymes and bacteria in it, so you can digest it without any additional effort from your body. And micronutrients those are animal hormones that aren't meat too exist at s temperatures above an animal's body.
Even by feel, I eat a kilogram of meat per day and if it's cooked I get constipated, even frozen raw moves slowly, only raw meat digests very nicely.
If you think that pasteurized milk is better to digest than raw, than it would make sense for meat too be the same. But if you're willing to accept that unpasteurized milk is better, than it makes no sense to assume meat is different, people basically only say that because that's what they were taught.

but if u eat raw me from the store you will die becuase its not safe only eat raw foods from trusted farms.

 

[HerpDerpson]

but if u eat raw me from the store you will die becuase its not safe only eat raw foods from trusted farms.

Jfl, you won't die, you'll get diarrhea at worst. Even then, I never had any stomach problems with muscle meat from the store, only the organs, but they tasted so bitter I wouldn't want to eat them anyway. But that's just on the surface, I know you accumulate quite a lot of toxicity from that kind of meat. Still, sometimes there's just nothing better available.
Then I started buying meat from a butcher, which is fine, but the problem is that it's been frozen at some point, so it's not strictly speaking raw, still much better than cooked meat. And eventually I started buying meat from a farmer, yeah.

 

[NordicLeonhard]

 

[capybar]

ultra based thread

 

[flippasav]

Spoiler: Verdict

PASTEURIZATION OF MILK.​

HL Deb 10 April 1946 vol 140 cc643-75 643
§ 2.41 p.m.

§ LORD ROTHSCHILD rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to 644 the urgent need for compulsory pasteurization of milk in as many parts of the United Kingdom as is practicable; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in spite of your Lordships' well-known indulgence towards beginners, I imagine there are few who do not feel considerable apprehension on the occasion of their maiden speech in this Chamber. I feel this particularly because there are so many noble Lords who are better qualified to speak on the Motion in my name than I am. Nevertheless, I am fortified to a certain extent by the fact that the Motion has the backing of a number of learned institutions such as the British Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Joint Tuberculosis Council, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians.

§ It will not be necessary for me to say much about the benefits of pasteurized milk or, as it is known in these days, heat treated milk. Your Lordships are aware that a large number of people die each year through drinking milk contaminated with the bovine tuberculosis germ. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics, but will merely mention that if all the members of this House were killed twice a year—and I think your Lordships will agree that this would be a matter of some gravity—the number of deaths would be of the same order as that caused in the United Kingdom by drinking raw milk contaminated with the germ of tuberculosis. I need not remind your Lordships that the number of casualties from this germ far exceeds the number of deaths; but no precise figures are available to me on this point, though the number of casualties has been estimated at about five times the number of deaths. If we put the number of deaths per year at 1,600, the number of casualties will be between 7,000 and 8,000. These casualties, which require months of hospital treatment, are a source of misery and anxiety to their families and grave expense to the State.

§ Of course tuberculosis is not the only disease caused by drinking raw milk contaminated with germs. Undulant fever claims an unknown number of victims each year—un-known because it is a difficult disease to diagnose—while outbreaks of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, dysentry, food poisoning, scarlet fever, and diphtheria 645 are known to be caused from time to time by the drinking of raw milk. During the war, well authenticated milk-borne examples of each of these diseases were reported in the medical Press. Possibly the noble Lord who replies for the Government may be able to tell your Lordships if there have been any outbreaks of disease caused by drinking contaminated raw milk in the United Kingdom during 1946.

§ It would appear obvious from the few words I have said that considerable benefits would accrue to the population of this country by removing a perfectly clear cut source of disease and death from the population's milk; and on the assumption that this side of the case is not in dispute, I will turn to the other side which concerns the arguments put forward by the opponents of pasteurization. May I say at the start that I neither can nor shall attempt to deal with the economic aspects of this matter? Your Lordships are well aware that one of the criticisms of any scheme involving the compulsory pasteurization of milk in the United Kingdom is that it will have an adverse effect on the small producer-retailers. Your Lordships may have something to say about the relative merits of killing off numbers of the population each year and maintaining the economic interests of a relatively small section of the community, though the words "as far as is practicable" in my Motion indicate that I appreciate the difficulties of extending any scheme of heat treatment to special or rural parts of the country. If I may, I shall return to the question of the producer-retailer later.

§ The first objection with which I shall deal is that pasteurized milk tastes nasty, metallic, or at any rate different from raw milk. When I say to your Lordships that this is untrue, you will treat my statement with the same scepticism as the original statement that pasteurized milk tastes nasty. Your Lordships will require scientific or legal evidence one way or another. Such evidence could be obtained by submitting samples of raw and heat treated milk to some cross section of the community and seeing whether the members of this cross section could distinguish between the two types of milk more often than someone guessing or drawing the answer blindfold out of a hat. Your Lordships would decide one way or another on evidence of this type and not 646 on unsubstantiated statements of mine or anybody else. These experiments have in fact been done and Show without a shadow of doubt that an overwhelming number of persons are totally unable to distinguish between raw and heat treated milk. Of course if the milk is not pasteurized properly and, for example, is boiled, it is quite easy to tell the difference, but we must, I think, assume in the argument that the Government would not institute an incompetent scheme of heat treatment.

§ So much for the non-existent difference in taste. Another objection often raised is that pasteurization takes what is called "the life" out of milk. This phrase is a difficult one to deal with because it is so vague. In so far as heat treatment takes the life out of the noxious bacteria which are so often present in our milk, it is of course true, but I doubt whether those who put forward these statements mean them in this sense. It is more likely that they infer that some essential nutrient substances are removed from the milk by the process of pasteurization. It is true that minor changes are brought about in the composition of the milk, but numerous investigations on rats, calves, and human beings, carried out in medical, veterinary, and agricultural institutions in this country and in Scotland, have shown conclusively that such changes have no appreciable effect on the nutritive value of the milk. According to the Director of the National Institute for Research in Dairying, which your Lordships are aware is the most important Institute of its type in the United Kingdom, the difference in composition between raw and heat treated milk has been found in fact to be less than that between samples of raw milk taken from different herds.

§ Though milk is one of nature's best foodstuffs, it is by no means a perfect one, and no one can live exclusively on milk without additional minerals and vitamins. Consequently the fact that a certain amount of these substances is removed by heat treatment is of much less significance than the opponents of heat treatment would have us believe. The opponents of pasteurization—and many people who have fallen victims to their propaganda—sometimes say that pasteurization will remove the incentive to clean milk. Such criticisms display a 647 lack of understanding of the difference between clean and safe milk, and also impute a somewhat alarming degree of ignorance to the Government in imagining that if compulsory pasteurization were introduced, the Government would remove the existing regulations about the cleanliness of milk. The regulations about the cleanliness of milk are directed towards preventing milk being contaminated with dust, blood, water, cow dung, and milk-souring bacteria, all of which at one time were an almost natural constituent of milk in this country. Heat treatment, on the other hand, is intended to destroy disease-producing germs. Though it may render milk safe for human consumption, heat treatment cannot render dirty milk clean. Both clean milk and heat treated milk are desirable for different reasons.

§ The opponents of pasteurization also say that it destroys the need for the T.T. and attested herd schemes. Here again there is a lack of understanding of the objectives of the schemes. The T.T. and attested schemes are directed towards improving the health of our cattle as well as towards producing germ-free milk. The heat treatment of milk is directed primarily towards improving the health of our population and reducing the unnecessary number of deaths each year. Quite recently in this country an outbreak of dysentery occurred and was traced without a shadow of doubt to milk from a tuberculin-tested herd. There is nothing extraordinary in this as T.T. milk is always exposed to the possibility of contamination after the milk has left the cow, and we shall never be able to prevent farmhands, and others concerned with the milk, from unwittingly being carriers of disease But suppose we accept the risks that caused this recent outbreak of dysentery; even then, it will take many years for a high percentage of our cattle to become attested or to produce T.T. milk. Experience in the United States, where a costly slaughter policy has been combined with a T.T. herd scheme, makes it clear that it would take a minimum of twenty-five years for an important percentage of our cattle to come into this class, and I doubt if we shall be prepared, or even able, to slaughter cattle on the scale that has been done in the United States. Twenty-five years means many unnecessary 648 deaths and very many unnecessary casualties. Your Lordships may agree with me that anyone who says that the T.T. and attested schemes can achieve what we need in a comparatively short space of time must produce good evidence for such a statement if it is to carry conviction.

§ I now come to the criticism which the opponents of pasteurization put forward with a success which only real nonsense seems able to engender. These gentlemen say: "If we take all the noxious germs out of milk, we shall be preventing the population from acquiring a natural immunity to disease." Your Lordships may agree with me that the cost of this immunity, even if it existed, is somewhat high, and one that might not appeal to the mothers of children who have died from bovine tuberculosis. But apart from this, why do we not drink water contaminated with germs of enteric fever or any of the other diseases that are sometime carried by water? Are we not incurring a very grave risk in accepting the dicta of Ministries of Health of every political shade, of local authorities, of the medical profession, of scientists, or even of the ordinary man? This frightful risk in which most of us are involved by drinking pure water, is one which we appear to sustain with comparative equanimity and impunity. I wonder why a different view is taken by some people because we substitute the word "milk" for the word "water." The truth is, my Lords, that this argument, though on occasions it appeals to those who have not thought much about it, is one that is sufficiently illogical, if not vicious, to be rejected out of hand.

§ There are three objections to pasteurization which are more serious than those to which I have already referred. The first concerns the possibility that the institution of compulsory heat treatment would not only put small producer-retailers out of business, but would reduce the nation's milk supply. Of course if the Government were to pass some totalitarian Bill making it illegal to sell any form of milk anywhere in the United Kingdom which was not pasteurized, this would be the case. But my Motion is not worded in this way, and nobody in his senses would attempt such a measure. I submit to your Lordships that the compulsory institution of heat treatment in towns, shall we say with a population of 649 more than 20,000, would have no effect whatsoever on small producer-retailers; and, so far from reducing the nation's milk supply, it might well cause an increase. During the war literally thousands of gallons of raw milk were poured down the drain as unfit for human consumption, and it was this fact which caused the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to institute the heat treatment of milk as an urgent measure, thereby saving the nation thousands of gallons. I do not know whether any raw milk is poured down the drains nowadays, but if by any chance it is perhaps a similar saving would occur if the Motion in my name were adopted.

§ May I repeat that the institution of compulsory pasteurization in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants need have no effect on the little man and the producer-retailer? It is no answer that about 70 per cent. of the nation's milk is already pasteurized. This is not a matter for satisfaction at all when we remember the number of deaths and casualties each year from the other 30 per cent. A further serious objection that might be raised is that heat treatment equipment would have to be bought in the United States and would therefore cost dollars, which we either do not have or cannot spare for this purpose. The Dairy Engineers' Association, of which most of the firms who make heat treatment plant are members, inform me that not one screw for this equipment would have to be bought in the United States.

§ Finally, I must I think mention an objection to pasteurization which I put into the serious category though some of your Lordships may feel it hardly merits this treatment. I refer to that type of person who knows from personal experience and observation that the earth is flat and not round, and who say such things as: "What nature produces is good enough for me, so better not tamper with it; it might be dangerous; I like my milk raw." Your Lordships will be well aware that the idea of not tampering with nature is apt to get one into difficulties from time to time. When one is dying of pneumonia one must not tamper with the course of nature by administering penicillin. One must not tamper with nature during an acute attack of appendicitis by having an operation. Or even if one were to be so unwise as to allow an operation to take place, one must not tamper with 650 nature by administering an anæsthetic. If anyone were fortunate enough to get hold of a steak in the future, one must not tamper with nature by cooking it. As a whole we tolerate the peculiar activities of cranks and eccentrics with a certain affectionate amusement, but when they affect the lives and health of the people of our country, I think we should give up this tolerance and at the same time explain to the uninformed why.

§ When one ponders over the various methods we have of killing off our dwindling population, one cannot help returning to the melancholy spectacle of road deaths, and one cannot help being thankful that committees constantly sit and discussions constantly go on to devise methods of solving this tragedy. But in the case which I submit to your Lordships there is no need for committees and little need for lengthy deliberation. The committees have sat; tie deliberations have taken place, and In fact schemes have already been set out—I referred to the one of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, during the war—for introducing cornpulsory pasteurization. The exigencies of the war were doubtless responsible for the shelving of the noble Lord's scheme. The exigencies of the peace make the institution of compulsory pasteurization an urgent necessity. Any Government which does not implement such a scheme, or at the very least accept the principle for large towns must, in my respectful submission, incur a large share of responsibility for the death and disease which result each year from the people of this country continuing this ill-advised and unnecessary practice of drinking unpasteurized milk. I beg to move for Papers.

§ 3.0 p.m.




§ 3.22 p.m.




§ 3.45 p.m.




§ 4.4 p.m.




§ 4.11 p.m.




§ 4.21 p.m.




§ 4.25 p.m.







§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

That’s evil

 

[whitepilled4life]

Why would it increase bioavailability ? How would making it different from our body (our body isn't cooked, it's raw meat) make it easier to assimilate for our body ?

No reason to believe that naturally occurring parasites would be harmful. In fact they seem to be beneficial due to the fact that they feed on toxins and heavy metals.

Are you from china.

 

[Miniskull]

Are you from china.

no

 

[King Solomon]

The Amish Amos Miller farm has the best raw milk in the US. They have Camel, Donkey, Water Buffalo, Sheep and Cow milk (A2 cows). Grass fed 100% and no Vaxx, antibiotics or hormones pumped into them either. Camel milk has the most proven healing benefits but is unfortunately the most expensive.

 

[Hero of the Imperium]

Why would it increase bioavailability ? How would making it different from our body (our body isn't cooked, it's raw meat) make it easier to assimilate for our body ?

No reason to believe that naturally occurring parasites would be harmful. In fact they seem to be beneficial due to the fact that they feed on toxins and heavy metals.

point 2 is incredibly dumb. if they ate heavy metals you still ate them and poisoned yourself; heavy metals are unnatural and it's unlikely they're metabolized sufficiently into a truly safe and inert form by either you or the parasite

and if alive, living parasites of all types steal your food and weaken you, and some get into the organs

as for cooking itself, the main benefit of meat is protein, which is difficult to digest. however, vitamins such as they exist in meat will be broken down as well

given the danger of parasites and of spoilage by bacteria for meat that's been sitting around, before the age of refrigerators it was better in many situations to cook

 

[anticel]

have done raw meat diet for a month. rn i drink 3-4L daily.

 

[bradpittshairline]

Does it have the same negative impacts on acne as pasteurized milk? I've had it relatively often but have not isolated variables to see if it causes me acne or my whey/honey does.

my dermat said regular milk drinking in coffee/tea isnt enough to cause acne, but whey can cause acne because a single scoop of whey is made from tons of milk

 

[Sushifart]

point 2 is incredibly dumb. if they ate heavy metals you still ate them and poisoned yourself; heavy metals are unnatural and it's unlikely they're metabolized sufficiently into a truly safe and inert form by either you or the parasite

and if alive, living parasites of all types steal your food and weaken you, and some get into the organs

as for cooking itself, the main benefit of meat is protein, which is difficult to digest. however, vitamins such as they exist in meat will be broken down as well

given the danger of parasites and of spoilage by bacteria for meat that's been sitting around, before the age of refrigerators it was better in many situations to cook

There is no point in arguing with these fiends. Their minds are already lost and currently being mind controlled by hyper intelligent parasites. The only way to beat them is to go shrigma on them and accept the shroompill, connecting you to the natural world.

TLDR; Demonic possession and Satanic influence are just parasites, trust me bro

 

[Chadethnic101]

Yeah literally almost impossible to get it here in uk- also if you can find supplier is like 4 pints for £10 lmao
Pasteurised milk is like £1.50 for 4 pints ffs

Hate Jews

 

[Chadpreet_]

Can't even fucking drink some good raw milk it's over jfl

 

[klip11]

Spoiler: Verdict

PASTEURIZATION OF MILK.​

HL Deb 10 April 1946 vol 140 cc643-75 643
§ 2.41 p.m.

§ LORD ROTHSCHILD rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to 644 the urgent need for compulsory pasteurization of milk in as many parts of the United Kingdom as is practicable; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in spite of your Lordships' well-known indulgence towards beginners, I imagine there are few who do not feel considerable apprehension on the occasion of their maiden speech in this Chamber. I feel this particularly because there are so many noble Lords who are better qualified to speak on the Motion in my name than I am. Nevertheless, I am fortified to a certain extent by the fact that the Motion has the backing of a number of learned institutions such as the British Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Joint Tuberculosis Council, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians.

§ It will not be necessary for me to say much about the benefits of pasteurized milk or, as it is known in these days, heat treated milk. Your Lordships are aware that a large number of people die each year through drinking milk contaminated with the bovine tuberculosis germ. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics, but will merely mention that if all the members of this House were killed twice a year—and I think your Lordships will agree that this would be a matter of some gravity—the number of deaths would be of the same order as that caused in the United Kingdom by drinking raw milk contaminated with the germ of tuberculosis. I need not remind your Lordships that the number of casualties from this germ far exceeds the number of deaths; but no precise figures are available to me on this point, though the number of casualties has been estimated at about five times the number of deaths. If we put the number of deaths per year at 1,600, the number of casualties will be between 7,000 and 8,000. These casualties, which require months of hospital treatment, are a source of misery and anxiety to their families and grave expense to the State.

§ Of course tuberculosis is not the only disease caused by drinking raw milk contaminated with germs. Undulant fever claims an unknown number of victims each year—un-known because it is a difficult disease to diagnose—while outbreaks of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, dysentry, food poisoning, scarlet fever, and diphtheria 645 are known to be caused from time to time by the drinking of raw milk. During the war, well authenticated milk-borne examples of each of these diseases were reported in the medical Press. Possibly the noble Lord who replies for the Government may be able to tell your Lordships if there have been any outbreaks of disease caused by drinking contaminated raw milk in the United Kingdom during 1946.

§ It would appear obvious from the few words I have said that considerable benefits would accrue to the population of this country by removing a perfectly clear cut source of disease and death from the population's milk; and on the assumption that this side of the case is not in dispute, I will turn to the other side which concerns the arguments put forward by the opponents of pasteurization. May I say at the start that I neither can nor shall attempt to deal with the economic aspects of this matter? Your Lordships are well aware that one of the criticisms of any scheme involving the compulsory pasteurization of milk in the United Kingdom is that it will have an adverse effect on the small producer-retailers. Your Lordships may have something to say about the relative merits of killing off numbers of the population each year and maintaining the economic interests of a relatively small section of the community, though the words "as far as is practicable" in my Motion indicate that I appreciate the difficulties of extending any scheme of heat treatment to special or rural parts of the country. If I may, I shall return to the question of the producer-retailer later.

§ The first objection with which I shall deal is that pasteurized milk tastes nasty, metallic, or at any rate different from raw milk. When I say to your Lordships that this is untrue, you will treat my statement with the same scepticism as the original statement that pasteurized milk tastes nasty. Your Lordships will require scientific or legal evidence one way or another. Such evidence could be obtained by submitting samples of raw and heat treated milk to some cross section of the community and seeing whether the members of this cross section could distinguish between the two types of milk more often than someone guessing or drawing the answer blindfold out of a hat. Your Lordships would decide one way or another on evidence of this type and not 646 on unsubstantiated statements of mine or anybody else. These experiments have in fact been done and Show without a shadow of doubt that an overwhelming number of persons are totally unable to distinguish between raw and heat treated milk. Of course if the milk is not pasteurized properly and, for example, is boiled, it is quite easy to tell the difference, but we must, I think, assume in the argument that the Government would not institute an incompetent scheme of heat treatment.

§ So much for the non-existent difference in taste. Another objection often raised is that pasteurization takes what is called "the life" out of milk. This phrase is a difficult one to deal with because it is so vague. In so far as heat treatment takes the life out of the noxious bacteria which are so often present in our milk, it is of course true, but I doubt whether those who put forward these statements mean them in this sense. It is more likely that they infer that some essential nutrient substances are removed from the milk by the process of pasteurization. It is true that minor changes are brought about in the composition of the milk, but numerous investigations on rats, calves, and human beings, carried out in medical, veterinary, and agricultural institutions in this country and in Scotland, have shown conclusively that such changes have no appreciable effect on the nutritive value of the milk. According to the Director of the National Institute for Research in Dairying, which your Lordships are aware is the most important Institute of its type in the United Kingdom, the difference in composition between raw and heat treated milk has been found in fact to be less than that between samples of raw milk taken from different herds.

§ Though milk is one of nature's best foodstuffs, it is by no means a perfect one, and no one can live exclusively on milk without additional minerals and vitamins. Consequently the fact that a certain amount of these substances is removed by heat treatment is of much less significance than the opponents of heat treatment would have us believe. The opponents of pasteurization—and many people who have fallen victims to their propaganda—sometimes say that pasteurization will remove the incentive to clean milk. Such criticisms display a 647 lack of understanding of the difference between clean and safe milk, and also impute a somewhat alarming degree of ignorance to the Government in imagining that if compulsory pasteurization were introduced, the Government would remove the existing regulations about the cleanliness of milk. The regulations about the cleanliness of milk are directed towards preventing milk being contaminated with dust, blood, water, cow dung, and milk-souring bacteria, all of which at one time were an almost natural constituent of milk in this country. Heat treatment, on the other hand, is intended to destroy disease-producing germs. Though it may render milk safe for human consumption, heat treatment cannot render dirty milk clean. Both clean milk and heat treated milk are desirable for different reasons.

§ The opponents of pasteurization also say that it destroys the need for the T.T. and attested herd schemes. Here again there is a lack of understanding of the objectives of the schemes. The T.T. and attested schemes are directed towards improving the health of our cattle as well as towards producing germ-free milk. The heat treatment of milk is directed primarily towards improving the health of our population and reducing the unnecessary number of deaths each year. Quite recently in this country an outbreak of dysentery occurred and was traced without a shadow of doubt to milk from a tuberculin-tested herd. There is nothing extraordinary in this as T.T. milk is always exposed to the possibility of contamination after the milk has left the cow, and we shall never be able to prevent farmhands, and others concerned with the milk, from unwittingly being carriers of disease But suppose we accept the risks that caused this recent outbreak of dysentery; even then, it will take many years for a high percentage of our cattle to become attested or to produce T.T. milk. Experience in the United States, where a costly slaughter policy has been combined with a T.T. herd scheme, makes it clear that it would take a minimum of twenty-five years for an important percentage of our cattle to come into this class, and I doubt if we shall be prepared, or even able, to slaughter cattle on the scale that has been done in the United States. Twenty-five years means many unnecessary 648 deaths and very many unnecessary casualties. Your Lordships may agree with me that anyone who says that the T.T. and attested schemes can achieve what we need in a comparatively short space of time must produce good evidence for such a statement if it is to carry conviction.

§ I now come to the criticism which the opponents of pasteurization put forward with a success which only real nonsense seems able to engender. These gentlemen say: "If we take all the noxious germs out of milk, we shall be preventing the population from acquiring a natural immunity to disease." Your Lordships may agree with me that the cost of this immunity, even if it existed, is somewhat high, and one that might not appeal to the mothers of children who have died from bovine tuberculosis. But apart from this, why do we not drink water contaminated with germs of enteric fever or any of the other diseases that are sometime carried by water? Are we not incurring a very grave risk in accepting the dicta of Ministries of Health of every political shade, of local authorities, of the medical profession, of scientists, or even of the ordinary man? This frightful risk in which most of us are involved by drinking pure water, is one which we appear to sustain with comparative equanimity and impunity. I wonder why a different view is taken by some people because we substitute the word "milk" for the word "water." The truth is, my Lords, that this argument, though on occasions it appeals to those who have not thought much about it, is one that is sufficiently illogical, if not vicious, to be rejected out of hand.

§ There are three objections to pasteurization which are more serious than those to which I have already referred. The first concerns the possibility that the institution of compulsory heat treatment would not only put small producer-retailers out of business, but would reduce the nation's milk supply. Of course if the Government were to pass some totalitarian Bill making it illegal to sell any form of milk anywhere in the United Kingdom which was not pasteurized, this would be the case. But my Motion is not worded in this way, and nobody in his senses would attempt such a measure. I submit to your Lordships that the compulsory institution of heat treatment in towns, shall we say with a population of 649 more than 20,000, would have no effect whatsoever on small producer-retailers; and, so far from reducing the nation's milk supply, it might well cause an increase. During the war literally thousands of gallons of raw milk were poured down the drain as unfit for human consumption, and it was this fact which caused the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to institute the heat treatment of milk as an urgent measure, thereby saving the nation thousands of gallons. I do not know whether any raw milk is poured down the drains nowadays, but if by any chance it is perhaps a similar saving would occur if the Motion in my name were adopted.

§ May I repeat that the institution of compulsory pasteurization in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants need have no effect on the little man and the producer-retailer? It is no answer that about 70 per cent. of the nation's milk is already pasteurized. This is not a matter for satisfaction at all when we remember the number of deaths and casualties each year from the other 30 per cent. A further serious objection that might be raised is that heat treatment equipment would have to be bought in the United States and would therefore cost dollars, which we either do not have or cannot spare for this purpose. The Dairy Engineers' Association, of which most of the firms who make heat treatment plant are members, inform me that not one screw for this equipment would have to be bought in the United States.

§ Finally, I must I think mention an objection to pasteurization which I put into the serious category though some of your Lordships may feel it hardly merits this treatment. I refer to that type of person who knows from personal experience and observation that the earth is flat and not round, and who say such things as: "What nature produces is good enough for me, so better not tamper with it; it might be dangerous; I like my milk raw." Your Lordships will be well aware that the idea of not tampering with nature is apt to get one into difficulties from time to time. When one is dying of pneumonia one must not tamper with the course of nature by administering penicillin. One must not tamper with nature during an acute attack of appendicitis by having an operation. Or even if one were to be so unwise as to allow an operation to take place, one must not tamper with 650 nature by administering an anæsthetic. If anyone were fortunate enough to get hold of a steak in the future, one must not tamper with nature by cooking it. As a whole we tolerate the peculiar activities of cranks and eccentrics with a certain affectionate amusement, but when they affect the lives and health of the people of our country, I think we should give up this tolerance and at the same time explain to the uninformed why.

§ When one ponders over the various methods we have of killing off our dwindling population, one cannot help returning to the melancholy spectacle of road deaths, and one cannot help being thankful that committees constantly sit and discussions constantly go on to devise methods of solving this tragedy. But in the case which I submit to your Lordships there is no need for committees and little need for lengthy deliberation. The committees have sat; tie deliberations have taken place, and In fact schemes have already been set out—I referred to the one of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, during the war—for introducing cornpulsory pasteurization. The exigencies of the war were doubtless responsible for the shelving of the noble Lord's scheme. The exigencies of the peace make the institution of compulsory pasteurization an urgent necessity. Any Government which does not implement such a scheme, or at the very least accept the principle for large towns must, in my respectful submission, incur a large share of responsibility for the death and disease which result each year from the people of this country continuing this ill-advised and unnecessary practice of drinking unpasteurized milk. I beg to move for Papers.

§ 3.0 p.m.




§ 3.22 p.m.




§ 3.45 p.m.




§ 4.4 p.m.




§ 4.11 p.m.




§ 4.21 p.m.




§ 4.25 p.m.







§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

What if the Jews tell me to wipe my butt after defecating? Should I do the opposite?

 

[Yo000]

Is pasteurized milk bad for you or just not as beneficial as raw milk? Is whole milk raw milk?

No pasteurised milk IS bad for you
and no whole milk is not raw milk
Raw milk means straight from the cow to the bottle

 

[gribsufer1]

Better idea would have just been to keep Raw milk legal. But raise safety standards around it

it does tho

 

[gribsufer1]

Okay, sorry for being rude. Basically you need to produce enzymes and bacteria to digest food. But raw unfrozen meat (any raw animal product) already has enzymes and bacteria in it, so you can digest it without any additional effort from your body. And micronutrients those are animal hormones that aren't meat too exist at s temperatures above an animal's body.
Even by feel, I eat a kilogram of meat per day and if it's cooked I get constipated, even frozen raw moves slowly, only raw meat digests very nicely.
If you think that pasteurized milk is better to digest than raw, than it would make sense for meat too be the same. But if you're willing to accept that unpasteurized milk is better, than it makes no sense to assume meat is different, people basically only say that because that's what they were taught.

ray peay says milk can be raw but meat should be cooked

 

[Veganist]

brutal, now I know why Im ugly. It's because of the Rothschilds' century-old plan to make me recessed and deprive me of a gf

 

[HerpDerpson]

ray peay says milk can be raw but meat should be cooked

He's stupid then and I mean it. I would even pay more attention for someone who'd be for 100% cooked, at least then they'd be consistent in their ideas.

 

[gribsufer1]

He's stupid then and I mean it. I would even pay more attention for someone who'd be for 100% cooked, at least then they'd be consistent in their ideas.

he still advocates pasteurized milk but he knows the bacteria liescaboyt raw milk are bs

 

[Greycel Slayer]

Spoiler: Verdict

PASTEURIZATION OF MILK.​

HL Deb 10 April 1946 vol 140 cc643-75 643
§ 2.41 p.m.

§ LORD ROTHSCHILD rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to 644 the urgent need for compulsory pasteurization of milk in as many parts of the United Kingdom as is practicable; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in spite of your Lordships' well-known indulgence towards beginners, I imagine there are few who do not feel considerable apprehension on the occasion of their maiden speech in this Chamber. I feel this particularly because there are so many noble Lords who are better qualified to speak on the Motion in my name than I am. Nevertheless, I am fortified to a certain extent by the fact that the Motion has the backing of a number of learned institutions such as the British Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Joint Tuberculosis Council, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians.

§ It will not be necessary for me to say much about the benefits of pasteurized milk or, as it is known in these days, heat treated milk. Your Lordships are aware that a large number of people die each year through drinking milk contaminated with the bovine tuberculosis germ. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics, but will merely mention that if all the members of this House were killed twice a year—and I think your Lordships will agree that this would be a matter of some gravity—the number of deaths would be of the same order as that caused in the United Kingdom by drinking raw milk contaminated with the germ of tuberculosis. I need not remind your Lordships that the number of casualties from this germ far exceeds the number of deaths; but no precise figures are available to me on this point, though the number of casualties has been estimated at about five times the number of deaths. If we put the number of deaths per year at 1,600, the number of casualties will be between 7,000 and 8,000. These casualties, which require months of hospital treatment, are a source of misery and anxiety to their families and grave expense to the State.

§ Of course tuberculosis is not the only disease caused by drinking raw milk contaminated with germs. Undulant fever claims an unknown number of victims each year—un-known because it is a difficult disease to diagnose—while outbreaks of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, dysentry, food poisoning, scarlet fever, and diphtheria 645 are known to be caused from time to time by the drinking of raw milk. During the war, well authenticated milk-borne examples of each of these diseases were reported in the medical Press. Possibly the noble Lord who replies for the Government may be able to tell your Lordships if there have been any outbreaks of disease caused by drinking contaminated raw milk in the United Kingdom during 1946.

§ It would appear obvious from the few words I have said that considerable benefits would accrue to the population of this country by removing a perfectly clear cut source of disease and death from the population's milk; and on the assumption that this side of the case is not in dispute, I will turn to the other side which concerns the arguments put forward by the opponents of pasteurization. May I say at the start that I neither can nor shall attempt to deal with the economic aspects of this matter? Your Lordships are well aware that one of the criticisms of any scheme involving the compulsory pasteurization of milk in the United Kingdom is that it will have an adverse effect on the small producer-retailers. Your Lordships may have something to say about the relative merits of killing off numbers of the population each year and maintaining the economic interests of a relatively small section of the community, though the words "as far as is practicable" in my Motion indicate that I appreciate the difficulties of extending any scheme of heat treatment to special or rural parts of the country. If I may, I shall return to the question of the producer-retailer later.

§ The first objection with which I shall deal is that pasteurized milk tastes nasty, metallic, or at any rate different from raw milk. When I say to your Lordships that this is untrue, you will treat my statement with the same scepticism as the original statement that pasteurized milk tastes nasty. Your Lordships will require scientific or legal evidence one way or another. Such evidence could be obtained by submitting samples of raw and heat treated milk to some cross section of the community and seeing whether the members of this cross section could distinguish between the two types of milk more often than someone guessing or drawing the answer blindfold out of a hat. Your Lordships would decide one way or another on evidence of this type and not 646 on unsubstantiated statements of mine or anybody else. These experiments have in fact been done and Show without a shadow of doubt that an overwhelming number of persons are totally unable to distinguish between raw and heat treated milk. Of course if the milk is not pasteurized properly and, for example, is boiled, it is quite easy to tell the difference, but we must, I think, assume in the argument that the Government would not institute an incompetent scheme of heat treatment.

§ So much for the non-existent difference in taste. Another objection often raised is that pasteurization takes what is called "the life" out of milk. This phrase is a difficult one to deal with because it is so vague. In so far as heat treatment takes the life out of the noxious bacteria which are so often present in our milk, it is of course true, but I doubt whether those who put forward these statements mean them in this sense. It is more likely that they infer that some essential nutrient substances are removed from the milk by the process of pasteurization. It is true that minor changes are brought about in the composition of the milk, but numerous investigations on rats, calves, and human beings, carried out in medical, veterinary, and agricultural institutions in this country and in Scotland, have shown conclusively that such changes have no appreciable effect on the nutritive value of the milk. According to the Director of the National Institute for Research in Dairying, which your Lordships are aware is the most important Institute of its type in the United Kingdom, the difference in composition between raw and heat treated milk has been found in fact to be less than that between samples of raw milk taken from different herds.

§ Though milk is one of nature's best foodstuffs, it is by no means a perfect one, and no one can live exclusively on milk without additional minerals and vitamins. Consequently the fact that a certain amount of these substances is removed by heat treatment is of much less significance than the opponents of heat treatment would have us believe. The opponents of pasteurization—and many people who have fallen victims to their propaganda—sometimes say that pasteurization will remove the incentive to clean milk. Such criticisms display a 647 lack of understanding of the difference between clean and safe milk, and also impute a somewhat alarming degree of ignorance to the Government in imagining that if compulsory pasteurization were introduced, the Government would remove the existing regulations about the cleanliness of milk. The regulations about the cleanliness of milk are directed towards preventing milk being contaminated with dust, blood, water, cow dung, and milk-souring bacteria, all of which at one time were an almost natural constituent of milk in this country. Heat treatment, on the other hand, is intended to destroy disease-producing germs. Though it may render milk safe for human consumption, heat treatment cannot render dirty milk clean. Both clean milk and heat treated milk are desirable for different reasons.

§ The opponents of pasteurization also say that it destroys the need for the T.T. and attested herd schemes. Here again there is a lack of understanding of the objectives of the schemes. The T.T. and attested schemes are directed towards improving the health of our cattle as well as towards producing germ-free milk. The heat treatment of milk is directed primarily towards improving the health of our population and reducing the unnecessary number of deaths each year. Quite recently in this country an outbreak of dysentery occurred and was traced without a shadow of doubt to milk from a tuberculin-tested herd. There is nothing extraordinary in this as T.T. milk is always exposed to the possibility of contamination after the milk has left the cow, and we shall never be able to prevent farmhands, and others concerned with the milk, from unwittingly being carriers of disease But suppose we accept the risks that caused this recent outbreak of dysentery; even then, it will take many years for a high percentage of our cattle to become attested or to produce T.T. milk. Experience in the United States, where a costly slaughter policy has been combined with a T.T. herd scheme, makes it clear that it would take a minimum of twenty-five years for an important percentage of our cattle to come into this class, and I doubt if we shall be prepared, or even able, to slaughter cattle on the scale that has been done in the United States. Twenty-five years means many unnecessary 648 deaths and very many unnecessary casualties. Your Lordships may agree with me that anyone who says that the T.T. and attested schemes can achieve what we need in a comparatively short space of time must produce good evidence for such a statement if it is to carry conviction.

§ I now come to the criticism which the opponents of pasteurization put forward with a success which only real nonsense seems able to engender. These gentlemen say: "If we take all the noxious germs out of milk, we shall be preventing the population from acquiring a natural immunity to disease." Your Lordships may agree with me that the cost of this immunity, even if it existed, is somewhat high, and one that might not appeal to the mothers of children who have died from bovine tuberculosis. But apart from this, why do we not drink water contaminated with germs of enteric fever or any of the other diseases that are sometime carried by water? Are we not incurring a very grave risk in accepting the dicta of Ministries of Health of every political shade, of local authorities, of the medical profession, of scientists, or even of the ordinary man? This frightful risk in which most of us are involved by drinking pure water, is one which we appear to sustain with comparative equanimity and impunity. I wonder why a different view is taken by some people because we substitute the word "milk" for the word "water." The truth is, my Lords, that this argument, though on occasions it appeals to those who have not thought much about it, is one that is sufficiently illogical, if not vicious, to be rejected out of hand.

§ There are three objections to pasteurization which are more serious than those to which I have already referred. The first concerns the possibility that the institution of compulsory heat treatment would not only put small producer-retailers out of business, but would reduce the nation's milk supply. Of course if the Government were to pass some totalitarian Bill making it illegal to sell any form of milk anywhere in the United Kingdom which was not pasteurized, this would be the case. But my Motion is not worded in this way, and nobody in his senses would attempt such a measure. I submit to your Lordships that the compulsory institution of heat treatment in towns, shall we say with a population of 649 more than 20,000, would have no effect whatsoever on small producer-retailers; and, so far from reducing the nation's milk supply, it might well cause an increase. During the war literally thousands of gallons of raw milk were poured down the drain as unfit for human consumption, and it was this fact which caused the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to institute the heat treatment of milk as an urgent measure, thereby saving the nation thousands of gallons. I do not know whether any raw milk is poured down the drains nowadays, but if by any chance it is perhaps a similar saving would occur if the Motion in my name were adopted.

§ May I repeat that the institution of compulsory pasteurization in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants need have no effect on the little man and the producer-retailer? It is no answer that about 70 per cent. of the nation's milk is already pasteurized. This is not a matter for satisfaction at all when we remember the number of deaths and casualties each year from the other 30 per cent. A further serious objection that might be raised is that heat treatment equipment would have to be bought in the United States and would therefore cost dollars, which we either do not have or cannot spare for this purpose. The Dairy Engineers' Association, of which most of the firms who make heat treatment plant are members, inform me that not one screw for this equipment would have to be bought in the United States.

§ Finally, I must I think mention an objection to pasteurization which I put into the serious category though some of your Lordships may feel it hardly merits this treatment. I refer to that type of person who knows from personal experience and observation that the earth is flat and not round, and who say such things as: "What nature produces is good enough for me, so better not tamper with it; it might be dangerous; I like my milk raw." Your Lordships will be well aware that the idea of not tampering with nature is apt to get one into difficulties from time to time. When one is dying of pneumonia one must not tamper with the course of nature by administering penicillin. One must not tamper with nature during an acute attack of appendicitis by having an operation. Or even if one were to be so unwise as to allow an operation to take place, one must not tamper with 650 nature by administering an anæsthetic. If anyone were fortunate enough to get hold of a steak in the future, one must not tamper with nature by cooking it. As a whole we tolerate the peculiar activities of cranks and eccentrics with a certain affectionate amusement, but when they affect the lives and health of the people of our country, I think we should give up this tolerance and at the same time explain to the uninformed why.

§ When one ponders over the various methods we have of killing off our dwindling population, one cannot help returning to the melancholy spectacle of road deaths, and one cannot help being thankful that committees constantly sit and discussions constantly go on to devise methods of solving this tragedy. But in the case which I submit to your Lordships there is no need for committees and little need for lengthy deliberation. The committees have sat; tie deliberations have taken place, and In fact schemes have already been set out—I referred to the one of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, during the war—for introducing cornpulsory pasteurization. The exigencies of the war were doubtless responsible for the shelving of the noble Lord's scheme. The exigencies of the peace make the institution of compulsory pasteurization an urgent necessity. Any Government which does not implement such a scheme, or at the very least accept the principle for large towns must, in my respectful submission, incur a large share of responsibility for the death and disease which result each year from the people of this country continuing this ill-advised and unnecessary practice of drinking unpasteurized milk. I beg to move for Papers.

§ 3.0 p.m.




§ 3.22 p.m.




§ 3.45 p.m.




§ 4.4 p.m.




§ 4.11 p.m.




§ 4.21 p.m.




§ 4.25 p.m.







§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

sensational

 

[idkwhattoputhere]

I don't buy steaks since they're very overpriced (it's just meat cut into funny shapes to make it easier to cook). But yeah I just take a piece of meat and eat it. If it's a tough piece I make slices with a knife, if it's soft, I just bite.

What are you favourite cuts of meat for a good price?

 

[_MVP_]

Up

 

[HerpDerpson]

What are you favourite cuts of meat for a good price?

The top of the neck is the softest and nicest one. The only problem is that it has no fat. Nowadays I just buy half a carcass and eat it for 2-3 weeks so I don't even bother with cuts anymore.

 

[idkwhattoputhere]

The top of the neck is the softest and nicest one. The only problem is that it has no fat. Nowadays I just buy half a carcass and eat it for 2-3 weeks so I don't even bother with cuts anymore.

sounds primal i fuck with that i might eat some raw salmon too

 

[1.60cm]

Spoiler: Verdict

PASTEURIZATION OF MILK.​

HL Deb 10 April 1946 vol 140 cc643-75 643
§ 2.41 p.m.

§ LORD ROTHSCHILD rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to 644 the urgent need for compulsory pasteurization of milk in as many parts of the United Kingdom as is practicable; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in spite of your Lordships' well-known indulgence towards beginners, I imagine there are few who do not feel considerable apprehension on the occasion of their maiden speech in this Chamber. I feel this particularly because there are so many noble Lords who are better qualified to speak on the Motion in my name than I am. Nevertheless, I am fortified to a certain extent by the fact that the Motion has the backing of a number of learned institutions such as the British Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Joint Tuberculosis Council, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians.

§ It will not be necessary for me to say much about the benefits of pasteurized milk or, as it is known in these days, heat treated milk. Your Lordships are aware that a large number of people die each year through drinking milk contaminated with the bovine tuberculosis germ. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics, but will merely mention that if all the members of this House were killed twice a year—and I think your Lordships will agree that this would be a matter of some gravity—the number of deaths would be of the same order as that caused in the United Kingdom by drinking raw milk contaminated with the germ of tuberculosis. I need not remind your Lordships that the number of casualties from this germ far exceeds the number of deaths; but no precise figures are available to me on this point, though the number of casualties has been estimated at about five times the number of deaths. If we put the number of deaths per year at 1,600, the number of casualties will be between 7,000 and 8,000. These casualties, which require months of hospital treatment, are a source of misery and anxiety to their families and grave expense to the State.

§ Of course tuberculosis is not the only disease caused by drinking raw milk contaminated with germs. Undulant fever claims an unknown number of victims each year—un-known because it is a difficult disease to diagnose—while outbreaks of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, dysentry, food poisoning, scarlet fever, and diphtheria 645 are known to be caused from time to time by the drinking of raw milk. During the war, well authenticated milk-borne examples of each of these diseases were reported in the medical Press. Possibly the noble Lord who replies for the Government may be able to tell your Lordships if there have been any outbreaks of disease caused by drinking contaminated raw milk in the United Kingdom during 1946.

§ It would appear obvious from the few words I have said that considerable benefits would accrue to the population of this country by removing a perfectly clear cut source of disease and death from the population's milk; and on the assumption that this side of the case is not in dispute, I will turn to the other side which concerns the arguments put forward by the opponents of pasteurization. May I say at the start that I neither can nor shall attempt to deal with the economic aspects of this matter? Your Lordships are well aware that one of the criticisms of any scheme involving the compulsory pasteurization of milk in the United Kingdom is that it will have an adverse effect on the small producer-retailers. Your Lordships may have something to say about the relative merits of killing off numbers of the population each year and maintaining the economic interests of a relatively small section of the community, though the words "as far as is practicable" in my Motion indicate that I appreciate the difficulties of extending any scheme of heat treatment to special or rural parts of the country. If I may, I shall return to the question of the producer-retailer later.

§ The first objection with which I shall deal is that pasteurized milk tastes nasty, metallic, or at any rate different from raw milk. When I say to your Lordships that this is untrue, you will treat my statement with the same scepticism as the original statement that pasteurized milk tastes nasty. Your Lordships will require scientific or legal evidence one way or another. Such evidence could be obtained by submitting samples of raw and heat treated milk to some cross section of the community and seeing whether the members of this cross section could distinguish between the two types of milk more often than someone guessing or drawing the answer blindfold out of a hat. Your Lordships would decide one way or another on evidence of this type and not 646 on unsubstantiated statements of mine or anybody else. These experiments have in fact been done and Show without a shadow of doubt that an overwhelming number of persons are totally unable to distinguish between raw and heat treated milk. Of course if the milk is not pasteurized properly and, for example, is boiled, it is quite easy to tell the difference, but we must, I think, assume in the argument that the Government would not institute an incompetent scheme of heat treatment.

§ So much for the non-existent difference in taste. Another objection often raised is that pasteurization takes what is called "the life" out of milk. This phrase is a difficult one to deal with because it is so vague. In so far as heat treatment takes the life out of the noxious bacteria which are so often present in our milk, it is of course true, but I doubt whether those who put forward these statements mean them in this sense. It is more likely that they infer that some essential nutrient substances are removed from the milk by the process of pasteurization. It is true that minor changes are brought about in the composition of the milk, but numerous investigations on rats, calves, and human beings, carried out in medical, veterinary, and agricultural institutions in this country and in Scotland, have shown conclusively that such changes have no appreciable effect on the nutritive value of the milk. According to the Director of the National Institute for Research in Dairying, which your Lordships are aware is the most important Institute of its type in the United Kingdom, the difference in composition between raw and heat treated milk has been found in fact to be less than that between samples of raw milk taken from different herds.

§ Though milk is one of nature's best foodstuffs, it is by no means a perfect one, and no one can live exclusively on milk without additional minerals and vitamins. Consequently the fact that a certain amount of these substances is removed by heat treatment is of much less significance than the opponents of heat treatment would have us believe. The opponents of pasteurization—and many people who have fallen victims to their propaganda—sometimes say that pasteurization will remove the incentive to clean milk. Such criticisms display a 647 lack of understanding of the difference between clean and safe milk, and also impute a somewhat alarming degree of ignorance to the Government in imagining that if compulsory pasteurization were introduced, the Government would remove the existing regulations about the cleanliness of milk. The regulations about the cleanliness of milk are directed towards preventing milk being contaminated with dust, blood, water, cow dung, and milk-souring bacteria, all of which at one time were an almost natural constituent of milk in this country. Heat treatment, on the other hand, is intended to destroy disease-producing germs. Though it may render milk safe for human consumption, heat treatment cannot render dirty milk clean. Both clean milk and heat treated milk are desirable for different reasons.

§ The opponents of pasteurization also say that it destroys the need for the T.T. and attested herd schemes. Here again there is a lack of understanding of the objectives of the schemes. The T.T. and attested schemes are directed towards improving the health of our cattle as well as towards producing germ-free milk. The heat treatment of milk is directed primarily towards improving the health of our population and reducing the unnecessary number of deaths each year. Quite recently in this country an outbreak of dysentery occurred and was traced without a shadow of doubt to milk from a tuberculin-tested herd. There is nothing extraordinary in this as T.T. milk is always exposed to the possibility of contamination after the milk has left the cow, and we shall never be able to prevent farmhands, and others concerned with the milk, from unwittingly being carriers of disease But suppose we accept the risks that caused this recent outbreak of dysentery; even then, it will take many years for a high percentage of our cattle to become attested or to produce T.T. milk. Experience in the United States, where a costly slaughter policy has been combined with a T.T. herd scheme, makes it clear that it would take a minimum of twenty-five years for an important percentage of our cattle to come into this class, and I doubt if we shall be prepared, or even able, to slaughter cattle on the scale that has been done in the United States. Twenty-five years means many unnecessary 648 deaths and very many unnecessary casualties. Your Lordships may agree with me that anyone who says that the T.T. and attested schemes can achieve what we need in a comparatively short space of time must produce good evidence for such a statement if it is to carry conviction.

§ I now come to the criticism which the opponents of pasteurization put forward with a success which only real nonsense seems able to engender. These gentlemen say: "If we take all the noxious germs out of milk, we shall be preventing the population from acquiring a natural immunity to disease." Your Lordships may agree with me that the cost of this immunity, even if it existed, is somewhat high, and one that might not appeal to the mothers of children who have died from bovine tuberculosis. But apart from this, why do we not drink water contaminated with germs of enteric fever or any of the other diseases that are sometime carried by water? Are we not incurring a very grave risk in accepting the dicta of Ministries of Health of every political shade, of local authorities, of the medical profession, of scientists, or even of the ordinary man? This frightful risk in which most of us are involved by drinking pure water, is one which we appear to sustain with comparative equanimity and impunity. I wonder why a different view is taken by some people because we substitute the word "milk" for the word "water." The truth is, my Lords, that this argument, though on occasions it appeals to those who have not thought much about it, is one that is sufficiently illogical, if not vicious, to be rejected out of hand.

§ There are three objections to pasteurization which are more serious than those to which I have already referred. The first concerns the possibility that the institution of compulsory heat treatment would not only put small producer-retailers out of business, but would reduce the nation's milk supply. Of course if the Government were to pass some totalitarian Bill making it illegal to sell any form of milk anywhere in the United Kingdom which was not pasteurized, this would be the case. But my Motion is not worded in this way, and nobody in his senses would attempt such a measure. I submit to your Lordships that the compulsory institution of heat treatment in towns, shall we say with a population of 649 more than 20,000, would have no effect whatsoever on small producer-retailers; and, so far from reducing the nation's milk supply, it might well cause an increase. During the war literally thousands of gallons of raw milk were poured down the drain as unfit for human consumption, and it was this fact which caused the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to institute the heat treatment of milk as an urgent measure, thereby saving the nation thousands of gallons. I do not know whether any raw milk is poured down the drains nowadays, but if by any chance it is perhaps a similar saving would occur if the Motion in my name were adopted.

§ May I repeat that the institution of compulsory pasteurization in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants need have no effect on the little man and the producer-retailer? It is no answer that about 70 per cent. of the nation's milk is already pasteurized. This is not a matter for satisfaction at all when we remember the number of deaths and casualties each year from the other 30 per cent. A further serious objection that might be raised is that heat treatment equipment would have to be bought in the United States and would therefore cost dollars, which we either do not have or cannot spare for this purpose. The Dairy Engineers' Association, of which most of the firms who make heat treatment plant are members, inform me that not one screw for this equipment would have to be bought in the United States.

§ Finally, I must I think mention an objection to pasteurization which I put into the serious category though some of your Lordships may feel it hardly merits this treatment. I refer to that type of person who knows from personal experience and observation that the earth is flat and not round, and who say such things as: "What nature produces is good enough for me, so better not tamper with it; it might be dangerous; I like my milk raw." Your Lordships will be well aware that the idea of not tampering with nature is apt to get one into difficulties from time to time. When one is dying of pneumonia one must not tamper with the course of nature by administering penicillin. One must not tamper with nature during an acute attack of appendicitis by having an operation. Or even if one were to be so unwise as to allow an operation to take place, one must not tamper with 650 nature by administering an anæsthetic. If anyone were fortunate enough to get hold of a steak in the future, one must not tamper with nature by cooking it. As a whole we tolerate the peculiar activities of cranks and eccentrics with a certain affectionate amusement, but when they affect the lives and health of the people of our country, I think we should give up this tolerance and at the same time explain to the uninformed why.

§ When one ponders over the various methods we have of killing off our dwindling population, one cannot help returning to the melancholy spectacle of road deaths, and one cannot help being thankful that committees constantly sit and discussions constantly go on to devise methods of solving this tragedy. But in the case which I submit to your Lordships there is no need for committees and little need for lengthy deliberation. The committees have sat; tie deliberations have taken place, and In fact schemes have already been set out—I referred to the one of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, during the war—for introducing cornpulsory pasteurization. The exigencies of the war were doubtless responsible for the shelving of the noble Lord's scheme. The exigencies of the peace make the institution of compulsory pasteurization an urgent necessity. Any Government which does not implement such a scheme, or at the very least accept the principle for large towns must, in my respectful submission, incur a large share of responsibility for the death and disease which result each year from the people of this country continuing this ill-advised and unnecessary practice of drinking unpasteurized milk. I beg to move for Papers.

§ 3.0 p.m.




§ 3.22 p.m.




§ 3.45 p.m.




§ 4.4 p.m.




§ 4.11 p.m.




§ 4.21 p.m.




§ 4.25 p.m.







§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

so many words

 

[Deleted member 27066]

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

 

[Deleted member 52057]

it seems the jews banned him. what a surprise