Same state regulators that oppose raw milk because of 'safety' concerns voted to reject lowering pus cell count maximums in conventional milk

Friday, April 06, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Tags: pasteurized milk, pus cells, regulators

(NaturalNews) Pasteurized, homogenized, conventional milk is not getting any safer, thanks to a National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) committee that last year voted against proposed new measures that would have reduced the maximum allowable pus cell count in conventional milk from 750,000 cells per millimeter (cells/mL) to 400,000 cells/mL. And some of those who voted against the proposal, which would have improved conventional milk quality and safety, are some of the same individuals that openly oppose raw milk sales because of supposed "safety" concerns.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), a cooperative of American milk producers that represents dairy interests, reports that in a 26-25 decision, the voting delegates, a group composed of state regulators that oversee milk safety rules in their own states, voted to strike down the proposal. This decision, which obviously benefits filthy, large-scale milk production operations at the expense of public health, will result in the continued processing and sale of pus-filled milk, which is the tangible result of infections and diseases that commonly afflict conventional milking cows.

"Since it's been nearly 20 years since the current standard was established, we believed it was time to make changes that improve the nation's milk supply," said Jamie Jonker, Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at NMPF, which supported lowering the somatic cell count limit. "It's regrettable that this approach isn't the one taken by NCIMS."

The NCIMS "Council II" was reportedly responsible for voting on this issue. And as you will notice, this council is filled with representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), public health and safety officials from numerous states, and even representatives from large-scale dairy producers. Based on this list, it is no wonder that the majority voted against rules to improve the quality and safety of conventional milk, as such mandates would require cleaning up a toxic industry that basically thrives on existing poor safety standards.

You can view a list of the Council II members here:
http://www.ncims.org/Councils%20and%20Committees.htm

Meanwhile, those who voted against conventional milk improvement requirements are some of the same folks that claim raw milk, regardless of how it is produced and no matter how much safety testing is involved, is inherently dangerous and unsafe for the public. The unscientific, double-standard very clearly illustrates everything that is wrong with the modern, toxic food system and the so-called public health agencies that allow it to thrive.

Be sure to check out this NaturalNews "infographic" that compares organic, raw milk to conventional, pasteurized milk:
http://www.naturalnews.com



Also, watch the Consumer Wellness Center's new "Got a milk PUStache?" video that exposes the pus cell count content of pasteurized milk. The short video is viewable at:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=C463AA940B9AEBA5D294F87FF0716579



Or on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKTfkFIiQUw

Sources for this article include:

http://nmpf.org

http://www.ncims.org/Councils%20and%20Committees.htm