Another Ridiculous, Misleading Mainstream Media HeadlineApparently all those supposed geniuses in human history from times prior to pasteurization justlucked out. The Daily Mail Online published what many commenters have called a misleading article yesterday entitled, Women who drink organic milk in pregnancy could be harming their babys IQ. Heres the very first line: Pregnant women who drink organic milk risk harming their childs brain development. What a powerful, sweeping blanket statement with horrible implications for pregnant women who drink organic milk. However, lets look a bit more closely at what were being told here. The actual study cited in the Daily Mail article (authored by Daily Mail Reporter) does not mention anything about organic versus non-organic milk. Read for yourself. Perhaps the idea was borrowed from The Telegraph, which ran a similar story (albeit with a headline more geared toward milk sales than trashing organics) based on the same iodine study. The Telegraph story briefly mentioned another study from last year that claimed organic milk had less iodine than the regular variety. What that particular study actually concluded was: There was no difference in the iodine concentration of either conventional or organic milk by area of purchase. However, a difference was seen in iodine concentration of organic milk by region of origin. What About Milk Containing Genetically Engineered Growth Hormones? Neither article mentions anything about how much of the conventional milk sold in grocery stores is treated with rbST, biotech giant Monsantos genetically engineered E. coli bacteria version of bovine somatotrophin, a growth hormone produced by cows. Perhaps this is because rbSTs use is banned in all 27 countries in the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand; however, there are no restrictions on rbST in imported dairy products that still show up on U.K. grocery store shelves. Here in the United States, we are consistently told no difference has been observed between milk from rbST-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. However, even the packaging for Monsantos rbST Posilac lists numerous potential side effects, including visibly abnormal milk, reduced fertility and hoof problems. A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research showed rbST-treated cows had a 55 percent increase in lameness, a 40 percent decrease in fertility and clinical mastitis (teat inflammation) cases increased by 25 percent. Claims that rbST becomes biologically inactive in the human digestive tract because it is specific to cows have also been shown to be inaccurate at best. In addition, cows with mastitis are typically treated with antibiotics that wind up in the milk, and studies on potential antibiotic resistance in humans who consume milk from mastitis-plagued cows shot up with synthetic growth hormones have not been conducted. It seems chemicals and additives in our food do not simply disappear by magic when ingested. Although imperfect, organic foods are one of the only options some people have for fighting this, and as weve reported before, organic food is consistently under attack in the mainstream media and by corporate interests. Organic Versus Non-Organic Milk Isnt Even the Point Really How about all the information out there which suggests any milk that isnt raw from grass-fed cows is pretty much terrible due to disgusting industrial farming practices and the pasteurization process (required because of disgusting industrial farming practices) which kills all the good bacteria in the milk? Mike Adams of Natural News has reported on the fact that, because of pasteurization, disgusting industrial farming practices are allowed to continue, business as usual: Thanks to pasteurization, conventional (non-organic, non-raw) dairy operators have no need to thoroughly wash their milking machines, no need to sterilize any milk containers, no need to wash their hands, and no need to maintain a clean milking environment whatsoever. Its just total filth. Dr. Mercola also makes a great point on this score: Drinking raw milk produced by grass-fed cows from clean, well-run farms, on the other hand, is actually far LESS dangerous than drinking pasteurized milk. In fact, not only does raw milk contain good bacteria that are essential for a healthy digestive system, raw milk also offers protection against disease-causing bacteria. CDC data3shows there are about 412 confirmed cases of people getting ill from pasteurized milk each year, while only about 116 illnesses a year are linked to raw milk. And research by Dr. Ted Beals4, MD, featured in the summer 2011 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, shows that you are about 35,000 times more likely to get sick from other foods than you are from raw milk! What about information suggesting that Western countries have shown a dramatic increase in food allergies in recent decades, including severe milk protein allergies? In addition, neither the Daily Mail nor the Telegraph mentioned anything about the fact that iodine acts synergistically with selenium and magnesium, and imbalances between these minerals have been shown to cause serious health problems including chronic autoimmune thyroiditis (CAT), a horrible condition where the body attacks its own thyroid gland that results in a bevy of horrible symptoms including hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism. None of those important clarifications are brought up, and the mainstream media continues to regurgitate scaremongering blanket statement headlines that dupe an ignorant populace who believe whatever they read without thinking twice. MELISSA MELTONis a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com where this article firs appeared. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is a prison for the human soul from which we must break free. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 