Support unpasteurised milk sales in the UK

I like the taste of raw - real milk

I like the taste of raw - real milk

Would love for it to be made more available especially in supermarkets or specialised outlets.

Would love for it to be made more available especially in supermarkets or specialised outlets.

I support this. Unpasteurised milk is healthier. But it does have a draw backs - e.g. its life is shorter and it spoils more rapidly.

I support this. Unpasteurised milk is healthier. But it does have a draw backs - e.g. its life is shorter and it spoils more rapidly.

Give our milk back

Give our milk back

Give back out raw milk plzzzzzzzz

Give back out raw milk plzzzzzzzz

PLEASE GIVE US BACK OUR MILK...AS NATURE INTENDED IT TO BE.

PLEASE GIVE US BACK OUR MILK...AS NATURE INTENDED IT TO BE.

As a public health inspector/ environmental health officer, I was taught that raw milk posed more problems from bacteria than heat-treated milk did. But I noticed that outbreaks associated with cheese or milk occurred much more often in heat-treated than in raw. Since I retired 17 years ago, I have researched this in depth. I am certain that raw milk is bacteriologically safer than heat-treated milk. The danger from drinking milk is from heat-treated milk. This is essentially sterile, but if it becomes contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, they can rapidly cause disease. Raw milk naturally contains bacteria such as lactobacillus that prevent harmful bacteria taking hold. In addition, the process of heat-treating milk denatures enzymes. This means the body cannot digest the milk. Raw milk, however, is easily digested and thus an excellent source of nutrition. The science – theory and empirical evidence – as well as the anecdotal evidence, and even the official stats, all clearly show that raw milk is bacteriologically safer and more nutritious than heat-treated milk. There is no scientific reason for heat-treating raw milk. Any body – such as the FSA – can easily determine that this is true. The problem is political. The big dairy concerns want cheap industrialized milk. They want this knowing that their processes are harmful: using harmful chemicals and GM feed, both of which harm both cow and consumer; using overcrowded and cruel conditions, which cause stress hormones in the milk; and using heat-treatment and homogenization, both of which harm consumers. The real question is: Why are the FSA now holding an enquiry into raw milk? Clearly to get opinions before officially announcing their new policy. But is it so that when they say raw milk poses a threat, they can appear to be impartial? (The threat is not to health but to the big dairy concerns profits). Or is it that they recognize that the “harm” is bogus, and with so many people becom

As a public health inspector/ environmental health officer, I was taught that raw milk posed more problems from bacteria than heat-treated milk did. But I noticed that outbreaks associated with cheese or milk occurred much more often in heat-treated than in raw. Since I retired 17 years ago, I have researched this in depth. I am certain that raw milk is bacteriologically safer than heat-treated milk. The danger from drinking milk is from heat-treated milk. This is essentially sterile, but if it becomes contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, they can rapidly cause disease. Raw milk naturally contains bacteria such as lactobacillus that prevent harmful bacteria taking hold. In addition, the process of heat-treating milk denatures enzymes. This means the body cannot digest the milk. Raw milk, however, is easily digested and thus an excellent source of nutrition. The science – theory and empirical evidence – as well as the anecdotal evidence, and even the official stats, all clearly show that raw milk is bacteriologically safer and more nutritious than heat-treated milk. There is no scientific reason for heat-treating raw milk. Any body – such as the FSA – can easily determine that this is true. The problem is political. The big dairy concerns want cheap industrialized milk. They want this knowing that their processes are harmful: using harmful chemicals and GM feed, both of which harm both cow and consumer; using overcrowded and cruel conditions, which cause stress hormones in the milk; and using heat-treatment and homogenization, both of which harm consumers. The real question is: Why are the FSA now holding an enquiry into raw milk? Clearly to get opinions before officially announcing their new policy. But is it so that when they say raw milk poses a threat, they can appear to be impartial? (The threat is not to health but to the big dairy concerns profits). Or is it that they recognize that the “harm” is bogus, and with so many people becom

As a public health inspector/ environmental health officer, I was taught that raw milk posed more problems from bacteria than heat-treated milk did. But I noticed that outbreaks associated with cheese or milk occurred much more often in heat-treated than in raw. Since I retired 17 years ago, I have researched this in depth. I am certain that raw milk is bacteriologically safer than heat-treated milk. The danger from drinking milk is from heat-treated milk. This is essentially sterile, but if it becomes contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, they can rapidly cause disease. Raw milk naturally contains bacteria such as lactobacillus that prevent harmful bacteria taking hold. In addition, the process of heat-treating milk denatures enzymes. This means the body cannot digest the milk. Raw milk, however, is easily digested and thus an excellent source of nutrition. The science – theory and empirical evidence – as well as the anecdotal evidence, and even the official stats, all clearly show that raw milk is bacteriologically safer and more nutritious than heat-treated milk. There is no scientific reason for heat-treating raw milk. Any body – such as the FSA – can easily determine that this is true. The problem is political. The big dairy concerns want cheap industrialized milk. They want this knowing that their processes are harmful: using harmful chemicals and GM feed, both of which harm both cow and consumer; using overcrowded and cruel conditions, which cause stress hormones in the milk; and using heat-treatment and homogenization, both of which harm consumers. The real question is: Why are the FSA now holding an enquiry into raw milk? Clearly to get opinions before officially announcing their new policy. But is it so that when they say raw milk poses a threat, they can appear to be impartial? (The threat is not to health but to the big dairy concerns profits). Or is it that they recognize that the “harm” is bogus, and with so many people becom

As a public health inspector/ environmental health officer, I was taught that raw milk posed more problems from bacteria than heat-treated milk did. But I noticed that outbreaks associated with cheese or milk occurred much more often in heat-treated than in raw. Since I retired 17 years ago, I have researched this in depth. I am certain that raw milk is bacteriologically safer than heat-treated milk. The danger from drinking milk is from heat-treated milk. This is essentially sterile, but if it becomes contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, they can rapidly cause disease. Raw milk naturally contains bacteria such as lactobacillus that prevent harmful bacteria taking hold. In addition, the process of heat-treating milk denatures enzymes. This means the body cannot digest the milk. Raw milk, however, is easily digested and thus an excellent source of nutrition. The science – theory and empirical evidence – as well as the anecdotal evidence, and even the official stats, all clearly show that raw milk is bacteriologically safer and more nutritious than heat-treated milk. There is no scientific reason for heat-treating raw milk. Any body – such as the FSA – can easily determine that this is true. The problem is political. The big dairy concerns want cheap industrialized milk. They want this knowing that their processes are harmful: using harmful chemicals and GM feed, both of which harm both cow and consumer; using overcrowded and cruel conditions, which cause stress hormones in the milk; and using heat-treatment and homogenization, both of which harm consumers. The real question is: Why are the FSA now holding an enquiry into raw milk? Clearly to get opinions before officially announcing their new policy. But is it so that when they say raw milk poses a threat, they can appear to be impartial? (The threat is not to health but to the big dairy concerns profits). Or is it that they recognize that the “harm” is bogus, and with so many people becom

All for natural food and fair treatment of our animals

All for natural food and fair treatment of our animals

The choice to buy raw unpasturised cow's milk is a human right.

The choice to buy raw unpasturised cow's milk is a human right.