Got milk? No, just lies - Page 14

Oh, and not for nothing, but let's also not forget that the original article that was posted to open this thread is written by an individual who clearly has an animal-rights activist mindset.  The author of this piece actually doesn't want the readers to drink any milk that's of animal origin, which would also include milk from your goats, joanro.  Drink milk, don't drink milk, I don't really care what anyone else chooses for themselves and their familieis.  But I DO take great exception to an animal-rights activist rabblerousing by trying to create a frenzy out of a non-issue.  [And no, I'm not pointing the finger at leeshideaway, joanro, Macaho, Two Moons or BE4U as being animal activists; that description I'm referring directly to the author of the original article leeshideaway reposted to open the thread.  The rabblerousing over a non-issue, OTOH, DOES apply to the five previously named individuals...]

Uh, guys, going back to basics for a minute:

No matter who wants to 'define' it, or why,
milk IS a 'foodstuff' - we all at one point in our
lives depended on it for our total nourishment
[whichever variety of 'milk' we were fed, including
human] - it isn't entirely just a liquid we drink as
an accessary to our diet, like coffee.

However, there is absolutely NO reason all food
should have added sweetener, whether 'natural'
sugar, GM version, aspartame, saccharin or any
other  shite.  Just something Big Producer says
we have to put up with in order to be addicted
enough to keep buying their brands, IMO and in the
light of increasing evidence on the topic.

All processed milk labels in the UK say it contains
[whatever] percentage of 'sugars' - whether that be
'naturally occuring' or 'introduced' isn't specified, so we
are no better off than you in the US, really.

Well, you got that off your chest, Hexe. Call me names, I don't really care. I've had lots worse happen to me and survived. Last I heard, this is still a free country, and I'll post another thread ( it was me who created this "non- issue" which has set off your rant, not leeshideaway)
that looks interesting and probably you'll get upset over the next one, too. :-/

Interesting, joanro...I most certainly did NOT call you any names--I said you were rabblerousing over a non-issue, which is an action, not a person.  My apologies for misattributing the opening post of this thread to leeshideaway and not giving you proper credit for having done so, however.

I must say I do find it puzzling that you would embrace the 'spin' on the topic as written by someone who considers dairy farms to be 'inhumane' places, as I can easily anticipate this same author would not look kindly upon the slaughter and consumption of the goats you raise, either.

If the discussion were whether or not it's a good move for milk processors to add aspartame to milk and milk products, I'd concur that such would be an issue, and a very important one at that.  That, however, is not the subject: the author of the article is shouting "Fire!" over something that is NOT at risk of happening, and it would seem that in this case, you've no interest in the actual facts of the matter.  As for you newest post, I haven't seen it yet, and one thing I can say for sure--just as I did with this topic, I won't be commenting on it unless  I research the topic for myself, using various sources to either confirm or refute the claims.  The only reason I bothered with this one is because I feel it was smearing the name of the actual dairy farmers when they really haven't had any say in the matter and the majority of them actively oppose the notion of aspartame being added to milk products, even though such an addition WILL still be required to be identified on the product label as having been added.

TTYA - I'll support Milk in it's purest healthy form everyday of the week.

While you's argue what's best for everyone elses school children - I'm enjoying a nice tall glass of RAW Milk  !!! 

Drink Up !!!!

Hexe, I'm not embracing any"spin", but frankly I haven't read your lengthy posts, as they have the flavor of browbeating. Not open to that. Every one who posted who you named as rabble-rousers likely don't appreciate it, either. If you had given your opinion without the attitude that every one is stupid who took the article at face value, perhaps the discussion could continue...unless your's is the final word :-/
Therefore no room for discussion.

You should read them Joanro. There is no brow beating, just truth and facts. Seems to me you question comprehension when it suits you, (matter of fact, I thnk everyone has done it).    She's got a strong defense because  the OP's posted article and other contributors claims, were not taken at face value, and instead, thoroughly researched. Did you not yourself suggest people be allowed intellectual space, so they should be better informed? That would also go for any poster who doesn't want to come across as a rabble-rouser when they want to start a hot button topic? I should think so.

Bee, unless every one falls in line and does as directed, they are ridiculed. I read the first and last lines of Hexe's posts and decided not to read the rest. Anything more than a few lines gets the same reconnoiter by me. I'm not questioning comprehension unless the story reads rain and someone claims it reads sunshine.

Rabblerouser?

I don't care about this post or that post, I only have a genuine concern for what gets into the food supply and if we are even informed at all.

As for being any kind of activist, I believe I've made myself very clear about my feelings for the natural world and all things in it.

Moons.