American Milk Banned in Europe Because it Does No Body Good

Waking Times
by Anna Hunt

As a mother of three young children, the debate centered around the nutritional value of cow’s milk has been at the forefront of my mind for quite some time. Conditioned by the well-known campaigns of milk marketers “Milk. It does a body good.” and “Got Milk?”, I’ve been led to believe that milk is needed – especially by young children – for good bone growth, brain development and, of course, to meet the body’s calcium needs.

If milk does a body so much good, why is US-produced milk banned in Europe? It turns out that in 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). rBGH in milk is believed to increase the risk of cancer. In an attempt to protect its citizens from genetically-modified milk, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N. Food Safety Agency representing 101 nations worldwide, has banned rBGH milk in the 101 nations that it represents. Canada is another country where rBGH milk is banned.

The European Commission organized independent research to review the effect of rBGH on public health. Here is what they found:


“The public health committee confirmed earlier reports of excess levels of the naturally occurring Insulin-like-Growth Factor One (IGF-1), including its highly potent variants, in rBGH milk and concluded that these posed major risks of cancer, particularly of the breast and prostate, besides promoting the growth and invasiveness of cancer cells by inhibiting their programmed self-destruction (apoptosis).” Source: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

rBGH is another one of Monsanto’s genetically-engineered products that mimics the cow’s naturally-produced BGH hormone. American dairy farmers inject their cows with rBGH to increase how much milk each cow produced – usually by 20%. The use of rBGH results in cows also producing more IGF-1 hormone, to such excess that milk from rBGH-treated cows has up to 80% more IGF-1.

Researchers throughout the world argue that consumption of excess IGF-1 hormone, which is also found in humans, may result in a higher risk of breast, colon and prostate cancer. Yet, in the US, Monsanto and the milk industry do not clearly label which milk comes from rBGH-treated cows.

And the effect on humans is just one of the problems. The use of rBGH also has a serious effect on the animals. Here’s a short 3-minute video about Monsanto’s deception regarding rBGH.



 If the idea of consuming hormone-filled, cancer-causing, Franken-milk doesn’t turn you off of cow’s milk, at least the non-organic non-labeled brands, then perhaps some of the following facts will give you more food for thought:

Milk is believed to deplete the body of natural calcium, which is used up in the process of digesting milk. It offers an inorganic calcium that cannot be easily digested and used by the human body. “Just like our bodies cannot use the iron in a magnet, they cannot use the calcium in milk.”

Milk is acidic, making it difficult for the body to digest. As a result, the pH of human intestines may become unbalanced, making them more susceptible to injury and disease.


Cow’s milk contains at least 59 active hormones, allergens, fat, cholesterol, herbicides, pesticies, antibiotics, blood, pus, bacteria and viruses.


“It’s not natural for humans to drink cow’s milk. Humans milk is for humans. Cow’s milk is for calves. You have no more need of cow’s milk than you do rats milk, horses milk or elephant’s milk. Cow’s milk is a high fat fluid exquisitely designed to turn a 65 lb baby calf into a 400 lb cow. That’s what cow’s milk is for!” – Dr Michael Klaper MD

Yes, our bodies need calcium. But perhaps milk is not the best source, as we’ve been led to believe. Try eating more lettuce, kale, broccoli, almonds, oranges, flax seed, sesame seeds, dill, thyme and other dried herbs. For cereal, try almond or hemp milk instead of cow’s milk. Calcium from plant sources is more easily digested by our bodies than calcium from cow’s milk, because plants have a high magnesium content, and magnesium aids in the assimilation of calcium by the body. Decreasing your intake of cow’s milk will do your body good!

Scientists Produce Genetically Modified Cows to Create ‘Human Breast Milk’

Natural Society
by Anthony Gucciardi

It appears genetically modified babies, lab monkeys, genetically modified mosquitoes, and even human-hybrids are not enough for some geneticists who continue to modify the very genetic coding of nature more and more each day. In the latest creation unleashed by scientists, human genes have successfully been inserted into genetically modified cows that now allow them to produce ‘human’ milk — milk that has the very same properties as human breast milk.

Genetically Modified Cows for Human Breast Milk?

This human-cow hybrid milk is now being lined up as an alternative milk formula for babies, with scientists envisioning ‘herds of genetically modified cows’ to ultimately provide the human breast milk needed to feed newborns. The announcement is reminiscent of Monsanto’s genetically modified bovine growth hormone known as rBGH. Now banned in over 27 countries (but still sold widely in the United States), the synthetic hormone is created using molecules and DNA sequences that are a result of molecular cloning. A large amount of peer-reviewed research has identified rBGH as a risk factor for both breast and gastrointestinal cancer, yet many US ‘officials’ and ‘scientists’ continue to claim it is safe. Remember, it is banned in over 27 other nations for legitimate health concerns.

According to the lead researcher Professor Ning Li, this modified human milk is set to hit the dinner table within 10 years or so:

“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”

It sounds like a science fiction novel in which morality and reason is but a thing of the past – human milk from genetically modified cows – however, it is actually a daunting reality. You see in the past, after it came out that ‘underground’ labs were actually creating human-hybrid chimeras using the genetic imprint of humans to breed disturbing and horrific ‘creatures’, scientists began to speak out over the serious ethical and moral implications. There is also a great concern of preserving the ‘genetic integrity’ of not only human beings and living animals, but the environment as well.

As one spokesperson for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals notes, cloned animals have in the past demonstrated serious health conditions that have alarmed researchers. So why are these scientists ready to roll out this genetically modified ‘human breast milk’ into grocery stores nationwide? She said:

“Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.”

An example of such a genetic threat can be examined with the introduction of genetically modified salmon. Pushed by the USDA and major biotech corporations, AquAdvantage salmon (the modified brand), was just moments away from approval when Congress blocked the FDA from approving the salmon for consumption due to serious health and environmental concerns.

The fact of the matter is that not only does research exist showing that consuming genetically modified food products is hazardous to your health, but they threaten nature as a whole. Both the genetically modified babies and salmon, if unleashed to the public, can effectively change the very genetic structure of future generations — changes that can cause serious long-term consequences that we do not even fully understand.

The question is how long will scientists continue to endanger public health and the welfare of all living creatures involved with rampant genetic modification of nature before the consequences present themselves in such a manner that invokes serious repercussions.

Heavy Metals, Drug Contaminants Commonly Found in US Meat

Natural Society

While the United States population has learned to deal with routine outbreaks of E. coli and other bacterial strains within the traditional US meat supply, many may be completely unaware that it is quite common for conventional meat products to contain even more concerning contaminants. Among these are heavy metals, drug residues, and pesticides. While bacteria can be killed off by cooking, these contaminants continue to stay in the meat.

Contaminated US Meat

Back in 2008, Mexico rejected a shipment of United States beef. Why? Because the US meat actually exceeded Mexico’s regulatory upper limit for copper. The meat, after being rejected by Mexico over serious health concerns due to the heavy metal content, was then sold in the United States, and eaten. The way in which much of the meat supply is contaminated has to do with how sick cows are treated and expedited off to consumers as quickly as possible. AlterNet explains:

“Sick dairy cows are given medications to help them recover, but if it appears an animal will die, it’s often sold to a slaughterhouse as quickly as possible, in time to kill it before it dies.”

US meat is some of the worst meat you can consume. Sick and dying dairy cows are dosed up with heavy amounts of antibiotics — not even counting antibiotics in animal feed – and sent off to be eaten. It was revealed in a 2010 report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the very organization responsible for monitoring the safety of U.S. meat for toxic residues was being called into question. Producers who bring sick animals to slaughter may still have many toxins in their system such as veterinary drugs, which could be threatening to human health. Despite this fact, the major industry producers are much more concerned about getting a return on the investment into the animal.

This so called ‘waste milk’, produced by the heavily medicated and dying dairy cows, and also banned for human consumption, is then fed to veal calves. As a result, the medications and toxins pass through to the consumers who eat the subsequent products. The FSIS, the organization brought into the question by the USDA, is responsible for monitoring such toxic residues in the food. In the report, however, the USDA openly stated that their regulatory practices were determined to be ‘woefully inadequate’. This does not even include rBGH, Monsanto’s synthetic bovine hormone banned in 27 countries that is created using molecular cloning.

If you consume US meat, it is important to buy it from a high quality local source — preferably organic. Remember that many animals are fed a low quality diet full of toxic additives and genetically modified grain while simultaneously being pumped full of harsh medications.

FDA revolving door opens for Monsanto execs

Salem-news.com, Jan. 30, 2011 by Marianne Skolek

(MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.) – A 2010 article published by Veterans Today titled, Former Former Monsanto Exec. Appointed to the Head of the F.D.A.!, announced that Michael R. Taylor, was appointed Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA.
Taylor is a former top executive (VP Public Policy), attorney and lobbyist with Monsanto and has had prior positions with law firms, the USDA and the FDA. Michael Taylor and Monsanto are responsible for subjecting this country and many others to the increased risk of breast cancer (7 times greater risk), prostate cancer and colon cancer because of what they did to milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream with rBGH as well as to all the foods that rely on milk solids and other parts of milk.

Monsanto’s development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation, political lobbying practices, seed commercialization practices and “strong-arming” of the seed industry have made the company controversial around the world. As a result of its business strategies and licensing agreements, Monsanto came under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department in 2009.

Mr. Taylor was previously a partner with King & Spalding, a law firm in Washington, DC. King & Spalding defended Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, in Federal Court when they were criminally charged with marketing OxyContin as less likely to be addictive or abused. Maybe Howard Udell, Chief Counsel for Purdue Pharma should be considered for a position at the FDA as head of “opioid safety.”

Michael Taylor head of “Foods” at the FDA — an outrage to the safety of the American people.
Full story
Related stories: Monsanto is the Real Food Terror Threat, (excerpt) In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for a monster molecule, “based on the aspartame formula” with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl [listed on EPA’s most hazardous chemical list]…Monsanto’s Neotame has been ruled acceptable, without being included on the list of ingredients, for USDA Certified Organic food items and Certified Kosher products.

8 Ways Monsanto is Destroying Our Health

Care2.com, Jan. 12, 2011

Taken in context, Monsanto’s list of corporate crimes should have been enough to pull their corporate charter years ago. And yet we allow them to continue to destroy our food supply, our health and the planet. Monsanto or Monsatan? Take a look at the company’s track record and decide for yourself.

Full story

GMOs in Food

FoodConsumer, Dec. 10, 2010

Currently Commercialized GM Crops in the
U.S.: Number in parentheses represents the estimated percentage that is genetically modified. Soy (91%) Cotton (71%) Canola (88%) Corn (85%) Sugar Beets (90%) Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%) Alfalfa (at Supreme Court), Zucchini and Yellow Squash (small amount) Tobacco (Quest® brand)

Other Sources of GMOs:
• Dairy products from cows injected with the GM hormone rbGH
• Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the
sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses
• Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed
• Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen
• Contamination or pollination caused by GM seeds or pollen
Full story