Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. => Topic started by: Javin on July 16, 2012, 04:00:51 pm
-
I'm sick, sick, sick to death of hearing this bullcrap. I just heard it from another friend on Facebook, and it doesn't matter how much you set people straight, they're going to swallow whatever some knee-jerk uneducated doctor is going to tell them.
The idea that honey is bad for babies comes from a 1978 study where they found botulin spores in some of the honey samples. They don't bother stating how MANY honey samples they took, or how many other items were sampled, but they do go on to mention that botulin was also found in vacuum cleaners, and dirt. So why not feed babies honey? Because it's the only thing the doctors can control. It's easier to tell someone not to feed their baby honey than it is to tell them to make sure they don't vacuum around the kid, or allow them to crawl on the ground.
And why is it that we've decided that everything in the world needs to be sterile in the first place? We know for a FACT that your immune systems can't build without exposure to immune triggers, so our solution is to REMOVE ALL IMMUNE TRIGGERS from the WORLD? How does this make even a little bit of common sense?
Then there's the known antibacterial and antiviral aspects of honey. One study that has NEVER BEEN DONE in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD is to see if the botulin spores found in honey are even VIABLE anymore. They could be (and likely are) very much dead making them similar to a "killed vaccine" which could help you build immunity without the risks of infection.
I also love that when the doctors have had cases of children with childhood botulism, the first thing they ask is, "Did you feed your child raw honey?" Inevitably, the answer is "no." So then, "Ummmm, did you put honey in anything?" "No." "Well... How about honey nut cheerios?" "Yes!" "WELL THERE YA GO!" (I kid you not, this is ACTUALLY what doctors are saying today. This is what passes for quack science now.) They completely ignore the fact that botulin spores are found en-masse in nature. They're EVERYWHERE. Where do you think the bees pick them up from?
There has never, ever, in the history of the world, ever been a single case where botulism was proven to be CAUSED by honey consumption. Period. It's never happened. Look it up. They've never even tested the spores found in honey to find out if they're still alive.
The next person to tell me it's wrong to feed a baby honey, I'm going to smack in the mouth.
Sorry for the rant...
:soapbox:
-
From Wiki
"Infantile botulism shows geographical variation. In the UK, only six cases have been reported between 1976 and 2006, yet the U.S. has much higher rates: 1.9 per 100,000 live births, 47.2% of which are in California."
But they can not say if the spores came from honey or somewhere else. I did not give honey to my kid until he was 1. And I tried to keep him out of the dirt and off the ground also. Spores can be everywhere. My sister in law will not give honey to her kids and they are older than mine. Figure that one out.
-
and i tossed my kids in the dirt, let them eat off the floor, and dipped the pacifier in honey. mostly....just to tick off my mother :evil:
-
My mother just gave me sweet tea in a bottle. :-D
-
I just gave my son honey for the first time over the weekend. He's 2. Personally, I'd rather be safe than kill my kid. He doesn't need honey before he's one. Nor does he need it now. Just saying...
-
The next person to tell me it's wrong to feed a baby honey, I'm going to smack in the mouth.
It's wrong to feed a baby honey!
If your done threatening folks....bring it on!
I'll let you go first, as long as you let me hit you back. ;)
-
I was born in 1940, with a defective stomach lining.
I was fed, ready for this, a mixture of - goats milk and honey - for about 4 months.
Of course this was long before all this fancy research on honey was done.
Bee-Bop
-
I just tell people to finish the sentence..... or any other raw food. It isn't just honey.
-
I just tell people to finish the sentence..... or any other raw food. It isn't just honey.
Yeah,but I don't see a requirement to label vegetables not to be eaten raw.Or fruits for that matter. They hang in that same dusty air where the botulism spores glean from.
-
I just gave my son honey for the first time over the weekend. He's 2. Personally, I'd rather be safe than kill my kid. He doesn't need honey before he's one. Nor does he need it now. Just saying...
Hey, bassman, here's a few other things that you should worry about:
Water kills babies. So do puppies. And anything that grows from the ground. And I can actually show you WAY MORE FACTS that prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. So might wanna "be safe" and lock your kid in a bubble.
The benefits of honey (antioxidants; natural antibiotics; natural immune booster; natural antihistamines; unprocessed, natural sugars; etc. etc. etc.) FAR outweigh the off-the-wall improbability that it causes BOTULISM just because some quack came up with the theory without a single clinical study ever being done. You can spare me the "I'd rather be safe than kill my kid" crap, as if you're insinuating anyone else who doesn't follow the same knee-jerk mantra ISN'T being safe and is TRYING to kill their kid. You can step right off your high horse. Anyone who doesn't feed their kids honey for fear of botulism ONLY does so out of paranoia and ignorance.
Pretty sure you vacuum your house. In that SAME STUDY they found botulin spores in vacuums too. So if you want to "be safe and not kill [your] kid" then you better stop vacuuming.
-
what if you use a HEPA vacuum?!?! :-D
-
and i tossed my kids in the dirt, let them eat off the floor, and dipped the pacifier in honey. mostly....just to tick off my mother :evil:
I tossed mine in the dirt too. Let them swim in the lake when the algae was in bloom. Fed them some wild edible plants and fruit unwashed from the outdoors. They went barefoot all summer.
*gasp!*
You should see them now. That dirty, natural, raw food, environment made them grow into big muscular strapping young men. With sharp minds to match.
No allergies. No defects. No problems.
Lots of things kill babies. But the chances escalate when 'Big Ag' has its foot in it.
-
Maybe a dingo ate the baby? :-D
Scott
-
That's bad Scott. :-D
-
and i tossed my kids in the dirt, let them eat off the floor, and dipped the pacifier in honey. mostly....just to tick off my mother :evil:
Never dipped the pacifier in honey;
Dippeded it in whiskey when they were teething, it numbed the pain in their gums !
This was done on advice of their Dr., if you didn't have paragoric (sp).
Now aday's we'd probably be locked up for child abuse.
Bee- Bop
-
what if you use a HEPA vacuum...
Be careful not to vacuum up the rug rat with the rest of the dirt!! LOL Just kidding.
Botulism spores are likely a lot like AFB spores because they are plentiful in nature. Every tea spoon of dirt should have its share of botulism spores. However I seem to 'member' that they only thrive in the absence of Oxygen. You are pretty safe in my estimation if you refuse to pressure cook or pressure can your homey because the canning process drives the air from the jar, not to mention it heats the honey to 245 degrees if performed correctly.
-
Years ago Charles M. ,can't spell his last name, in American bee culture had a peace on this. He said even mothers milk had the spores in it,among other things.
-
I know that you are talking about not giving babies honey because of botulIsm, however there is another issue when it comes to babies and that is allergens. Honey is high on the allergen list right up there with peanut butter. The reasOn for not giving our kids honey before they are two is because if they go into anaphylactic shock due to allergies it is incredibly hard to save a baby. Same reason it is recommended to not give kids nuts before they are two. The only reason we even considered this in our family is because everyone in our family does have allergies of some type. Please note this was a calculated and thought out plan on Our part. Not a knee jerk reaction to one person or doctor or survey. I agree that there is to much knee jerk reaction to a lot of things but there is usually a well reasoned argument as well.
Also my kids play in the dirt with the chicken poop and eat fresh food straight from the garden. We are proud parents when they eat dirt especially since my wife saw a research study that found that kids who eat dirt are smarter :-D
-
... my kids play in the dirt with ...chicken poop and eat fresh food straight from the garden. We are proud parents when they eat dirt especially since my wife saw a research study that found that kids who eat dirt are smarter...
I have been there and seen this and you better bet that I have the tee shirt to prove it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884551,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884551,00.html)
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/8/03-0033_article.htm (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/8/03-0033_article.htm)
I remember staying over at a friend's house when I was 6 or 7. He snuck one of his mothers spoons out of the house and he, his sister, and I retired to the tractor shed where we commenced to eat the dirt from between the lugs of his daddy's tractor tires. The dirt from a 1940s Ford 2N tractor is very nice with a certian defining aroma and a nutty finish but the dirt clinging to the back tires on a rear engine Allis Chalmers Model G is the absolute best.
-
The dirt from a 1940s Ford 2N tractor is very nice with a certian defining aroma and a nutty finish but the dirt clinging to the back tires on a rear engine Allis Chalmers Model G is the absolute best.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D LMMFAO!
-
... Never dipped the pacifier in honey; Dippeded it in whiskey when they were teething, it numbed the pain in their gums! This was ...on advice of their Dr., if you didn't have paragoric (sp)...
Back when men were men and the politicians were nervous, there was a patend medicine on the market named "Hadacol." The joke was "They had to call it 'somthing' didn't they?
I use to have a bottle of it in my Americana collection, complete with the bottle's contents, the box, and the instructions that came folded in the box. It was 80% 175 proof pure grain alcohol. The other 20% was honey and some unnamed "spices." The instructions said to give crying babies 4 TABLE SPOONS FULL of this concoction a day. IMHO, if you administered Hadacol according to the instructions I expect that you would not be bothered by babies crying, but instead by the babies singing off key.
-
why do babies have to eat honey in the first place ? if you want to feed your baby honey go ahead, but if it dies you're gonna feel awful silly.
i don't know if it is safe or dangerous or something in between, but it seems to me that if there is the slightest risk why do it ? babies don't have a complete immune system like adults do so they are more susceptible to a number of problems that most adult immune systems can handle better. so i would tend to lean towards the better safe than sorry approach. i also grew up eating dirt and unwashed fruits and vegetables, stepping on rusty nails and chicken or goose poop, wrapping wounds with paper towels and electrical tape that should have gotten stitches or at the very least a good cleaning and all the other things that are bad for you today, but it was mostly done out of ignorance. i still don't clean my cuts properly, but i gave up eating dirt for the most part.
-
Perhaps for all the benefits I've already listed? For centuries, honey was specifically FED to babies because of the benefits it gives them, including strengthening their immune systems. Honey also helps them sleep. A spoonful of honey just before naptime and they sleep like a log. It's also a hell of a lot more natural (and healthier) than the sugar they get on their artificially puffed styrofoam and sugar cereals.
Again, spare me the "but if it dies" crap. It has NEVER HAPPENED. There's never been a single study to prove that it's even POSSIBLE. Far more likely is that parents that stick their kid in a bubble are specifically CAUSING their child to have immune problems and allergies as they get older.
People will freak out about HONEY and throw out the "BUT IF IT DIES YOU BE SAD" garbage, but these are the same people that are quick to stuff some sodium benzoate laden crap into their kids' mouths.
-
Keep a few things in mind....
A 1 to 3 month old baby isn't likely to be crawling in the dirt.
A 1 to 3 month old baby isn't likely to be eating any raw fruits or vegetables.
A 1 to 3 month old baby has very little digestive bacteria, since all it eats is easy to digest milk.
A 1 to 3 month old babies get fussy, and to stimulate the baby to take a pacifier, it is easy to dip it in some sticky sweet liquid so the baby will suck on it and shut up.
Babies not eating real food have very non-acidic digestive tracts. This is what botulina bacteria likes. If that bacteria gets in there somehow (probably from honey, since that is all they might eat other than milk), it will start to thrive in the gut.
Unlike canned vegetables, where its toxin will build up and kill quickly, in the gut of a defenseless baby it will grow and slowly release its toxin. The baby will slowly start to have issues. These issues are often hard to diagnose, causing the baby to waste away. If diagnosed properly, it can be treated quite easily.
Once a baby is on real food, the flora of the gut starts to diversify, and the stomach becomes more acidic, and growing botulism in the gut is no longer an issue. This generally happens much sooner than 9 months, but an abundance of caution has been instilled, because quite frankly, who wants to risk their baby over some honey? Once a child has been on cooked real people food for a while, honey isn't an issue anymore.
If I'm not mistaken, corn syrup can have the same problems as honey. But honey has been used much much longer, so has cause many more issues over the years.
So yes, it is true and yes, it has happened. And yes, it has become blown out of proportion over the years. Rather than lash out the opposite direction, why not try to educate people on how and why it happens?
Additional link: http://www.infantbotulism.org/general/faq.php (http://www.infantbotulism.org/general/faq.php)
-
I'm completely familiar with infant botulism. Thanks. But you still haven't addressed the fact that it has NEVER been tested or proven that honey can cause it. Ever. It's all fear mongering. And if you think a 3 month old can't catch it from vacuuming, or being on the floor, you're purposely deluding yourself.
-
Um...there have been proven cases. And many other unproven cases. Honey, yes. Vacuum...not proven.
http://www.infantbotulism.org/parent/prevention.php (http://www.infantbotulism.org/parent/prevention.php)
Honey has been proven to have botulinum spores in it. Not all, not always. But it is a simple and easy preventative measure. Just like I wouldn't have given my babies raw carrots to chew on.
Babies don't NEED honey. Why risk something so unnecessary? You can't stop a baby from sucking on things that are dirty. You can stop a baby from jumping up on the counter and ripping into the honey jar.
I also didn't let my 8 week old infants play in the dirt or eat dirt. They did do that plenty later on (and still do :roll: ).
I really don't see what the big deal is...it isn't as if we're selling tons of honey to be consumed by infants. :roll: I've not lost any sales because of it, although I've explained it a few times.
-
I am reading this while the pressure cooker is going wide open behind me canning squash and hot dogs. What if one cans honey. It will kill out all the spores. Yes the honey would be heated to 240, but botulism free. Thoughts? :?
-
Um...there have been proven cases. And many other unproven cases. Honey, yes. Vacuum...not proven.
http://www.infantbotulism.org/parent/prevention.php (http://www.infantbotulism.org/parent/prevention.php)
Honey has been proven to have botulinum spores in it. Not all, not always. But it is a simple and easy preventative measure. Just like I wouldn't have given my babies raw carrots to chew on.
Babies don't NEED honey. Why risk something so unnecessary? You can't stop a baby from sucking on things that are dirty. You can stop a baby from jumping up on the counter and ripping into the honey jar.
I also didn't let my 8 week old infants play in the dirt or eat dirt. They did do that plenty later on (and still do :roll: ).
I really don't see what the big deal is...it isn't as if we're selling tons of honey to be consumed by infants. :roll: I've not lost any sales because of it, although I've explained it a few times.
And this is where you need to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation does not prove causation. This is a very basic tenet of science. When you see the word "linked" then this means it was a observational (ie: correlation) study. In other words, not... real... science...
They know that honey can have botulin spores in it. They also know it's in dirt, dust, vacuum cleaners, etc. ALL OF THIS CAME FROM THE SAME STUDY. It's a balls-out LIE to say that "the only known preventative is not to feed them honey" just because you found some spores in the honey. The spores are EVERYWHERE in nature. How do you think they got in the honey in the first place?
1.) Hundreds of children are diagnosed with infant botulism. Even in the cases where the parents KNOW FOR A FACT their child consumed nothing related to honey, the doctors just assume they're liars, and that the kid got it from honey.
2.) NO test has EVER shown that the spores found in honey are viable.
3.) The spores are EVERYWHERE. Not just in honey.
Again, your child is many times more likely to be exposed to VIABLE spores by your vacuum cleaner and the dirt around the house than to be exposed to POTENTIALLY NON-VIABLE SPORES in honey. EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT HONEY CAUSING BOTULISM COMES FROM A SINGLE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY. Period.
Believing that honey - a scientifically KNOWN antibacterial and antiviral - is the SOURCE of infant botulism is ignorant and asinine. Until a REAL study is done that shows differently, I'll continue to allow MY kids to have the health benefits that people have enjoyed from raw honey for millenia.
-
Wow...well go ahead then. Tell all your customers! Odds are you will never be responsible for a case of infant botulism, but it isn't big enough deal for me to risk. Sales are as good as ever!
BTW, that is why honey is called the only known preventable measure since that's the only known source of botulism spores that can be controlled - don't feed it to babies. We can't control/prevent the dust/dirt. So it is a true statement.
My kids eat honey too. They just didn't for the first few months, breastmilk was sufficient. No loss there... We don't get hung up on any magical health benefits, though. Its another sweetener.
-
"Another sweetener"? My 5 year old can make a meal out of honey when we are not looking. :-D
-
My son is 17 months. We started giving him honey right after he turned one.
-
I'll call this submission “We humans will gag on a gnat yet gulp down a camel.”
Better make that “Swallow a baby elephant.” More on this later.
Diseases caused by honey???? You got to be kidding… right?
Facing angry bees 40 metres high and unattached for honey - Human Planet: Jungles, preview - BBC One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_iMve4xvg#ws)
It looks like the queen bee whose comb is shown in the above link lays a good brood pattern. More on honey n health:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001390/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001390/)
http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-do-we-know-how-they-died/ (http://australianmuseum.net.au/How-do-we-know-how-they-died/)
Hypervitaminosis A is a painful and sometimes fatal bone disease caused by too much vitamin A. This condition is typically caused by consuming the livers of carnivores like tigers, polar bears and seals. Hypervitaminosis A can also be caused by eating large amounts of bee brood, ingested while eating comb honey containing bee brood. Fossil bones from human or near humans who died 1,700,000 years ago have been discovered with the unmistakable signs of Hypervitaminosis A.
Also: “…Recent emphasis on vitamin A and beta carotene as anticancer vitamins may contribute to chronic hypervitaminosis A…”
It seems that your danged if you do, and that your danged if you don’t!! So I won't.
Botulism in infants:
http://diseases.emedtv.com/infant-botulism/infant-botulism-p3.html (http://diseases.emedtv.com/infant-botulism/infant-botulism-p3.html)
I must agree that honey has never been proven as the source of the botulism that caused the death of a single human infant. The above link only mentions that botulism spores were present in 10% of the California commercial honey samples tested. We should remember that commercial honey is “Ultra Filtered“. No mention or claim for unfiltered or raw honey was made nor is there any scientific data available for unfiltered or raw honey or its relationship to botulism spores. The link also mentions that botulism spores are potentially present on the dust particles in every breath of air we take. In that case I guess we parents are ‘sposed’ to help our children hold their breath for the first year of life?
Baby elephants eating dung - BBC wildlife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icoUFdxhQM#ws)
After viewing the above link I will leave the rest up to your active imaginations. But remember that human infants when born into a perfectly natural world, come into this world at night, with their heads down and facing backwards in relation to their mothers bodies. Lets hear it now for “Baby elephants and Al-Natural child birth!”
More icky factor: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/fecal-transplants-work/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/fecal-transplants-work/)
-
so i take it you wouldn't be sad if your child died ? :roll:
It has NEVER HAPPENED
and you know this how ?
i'd like to know if you're a doctor ?
i'd also like to know why you are under the impression that if something hasn't been "proven" that it can't be possible. i imagine there was a time in history where it wasn't "proven" that bacteria caused infection or that viruses caused illness. some people in the dark ages thought the plague was caused by an angry god. were they right ?
and since you feel so strongly about it, then why stop with just feeding babies honey, why not feed them peanuts as well and let's give them measles and typhoid vaccinations and all that other nasty stuff right out of the womb and get it over with instead of waiting until they are older, enough of this mollycoddling.
botulism can kill a full grown otherwise healthy adult, so obviously it can also kill a baby which, by the way, has an incomplete digestive system which is incapable of processing the same things as adults can.
i never ate honey until i was a grown man and i never had a single allergy as a child, in fact as an adult i'm only allergic to a few medications, so it's not as if eating honey is the only way to prevent allergies.
-
POTENTIALLY NON-VIABLE SPORES
i wonder, couldn't they also be "potentially viable" ?
-
so i take it you wouldn't be sad if your child died ? :roll:
It has NEVER HAPPENED
and you know this how ?
i'd like to know if you're a doctor ?
i'd also like to know why you are under the impression that if something hasn't been "proven" that it can't be possible. i imagine there was a time in history where it wasn't "proven" that bacteria caused infection or that viruses caused illness. some people in the dark ages thought the plague was caused by an angry god. were they right ?
and since you feel so strongly about it, then why stop with just feeding babies honey, why not feed them peanuts as well and let's give them measles and typhoid vaccinations and all that other nasty stuff right out of the womb and get it over with instead of waiting until they are older, enough of this mollycoddling.
botulism can kill a full grown otherwise healthy adult, so obviously it can also kill a baby which, by the way, has an incomplete digestive system which is incapable of processing the same things as adults can.
i never ate honey until i was a grown man and i never had a single allergy as a child, in fact as an adult i'm only allergic to a few medications, so it's not as if eating honey is the only way to prevent allergies.
You do realize that jumping to an opposite extreme is every bit as stupid? Of course you do... :roll:
Very obviously, I'm saying that I prefer to base my fear mongering on, you know, facts. Not asinine fears that have not only never been proven, but for centuries, we have documentation of people giving babies honey for the benefits without a single report of honey CAUSING botulism.
Due to the KNOWN antibacterial nature of honey, the odds of any spores found in it still being viable are very slim. But instead of testing to see if the most obvious theory is accurate, let's just keep spreading the fear of stupid stuff why don't we?
Am I a doctor? Hell no, and I'm proud to say I'm not. While in the military I was a 91T, and spent a good deal of my tour doing medical research at the Naval Medical Research Unit #3 (NAMRU-3) in Cairo, Egypt. (It's a place we do stuff called "real science." - Not the BS that passes for science it today's medical field.) Our specialty was bacterial and viral. I actually helped develop the AIDS vaccination that is in human trials now. So yeah, you can assume my opinion is "qualified."
It's this exact kind of asinine sheep-following that has the bulk of the world afraid of saturated fats and cholesterol, even though science has proven time and again that there's no such thing as "bad" cholesterol. Instead, we'll just keep on following whatever the "doctors" say when their theory is based on a guy in 1850 who also believed in the "four humors."
Doctor's don't do research. It's not their job. Period. Scientists do research. Doctors regurgitate what they read from a book, and put it to use. No, I'm not a doctor. Even after leaving the military, I've continued doing medical research for the past 15 years.
Now, you can quit with your straw-man arguments. I never said it wasn't "possible." I have said many times it's highly improbable. It's POSSIBLE that a meteor is going to strike Washington D.C. this afternoon. This doesn't mean I'm going to move my family to California this morning.
You can spare me your elementary descriptions of what botulism is. I'm fully aware of its mortality rates, efficacy, and lifecycle. I've worked with anthrax, and even the lesser virulent strains of ebola (Reston/Marburg). You conveniently ignore the fact that EVERYONE is exposed to botulin spores EVERY DAY. EVERYONE. Even your baby. And for all you know, the much more LIKELY scenario is that the spores in honey are dead, and therefor the honey COULD actually be HELPING your child build an immunity to the viable spores that your vacuum cleaner is exposing it to. Or your carpet. Or your dog. Or any one of the millions of other sources. But instead of making the sensible, logical decision, you're going to listen to some idiot with an unproven and nonsensical theory because he has a couple letters after his name.
But you just keep right on withholding the honey and feeling smug about it.
And while you're at it, keep on feeding your kid their puffed starch cereal coated in sugar, and the cans and boxes of preservatives. The same people that jump on this high horse about 'well *I'D* never feed my baby honey because *I* don't want to feel bad when they die, so obviously *I'M* the superior parent" are the same bleep that don't have the first clue what all those chemicals are on the back of the boxes of crap they feed their kids. (Here's a hint: almost every preservative is a free radical producing agent. Do the research.)
-
And while you're at it, keep on feeding your kid their puffed starch cereal coated in sugar, and the cans and boxes of preservatives
now you're comparing apples to oranges. how does this prove or disprove anything remotely related to your soapbox ramblings ?
i'm not telling you you can't feed your baby honey so i don't know what your so mad about. what i've read is that you shouldn't give honey to children under the age of 1. it's risk/reward. what are the rewards ? unproven propaganda, what are the risks ? also unproven. given that i'd be more inclined to choose the lesser of two evils. i don't need to be some high-falutin "scientist" to exercise a bit of common sense. for all of your posturing and lecturing you have failed to even once disprove the theory. a lack of evidence for something is not proof to the contrary.
You do realize that jumping to an opposite extreme is every bit as stupid?
i was going to ask you the same thing.
-
And while you're at it, keep on feeding your kid their puffed starch cereal coated in sugar, and the cans and boxes of preservatives
now you're comparing apples to oranges. how does this prove or disprove anything remotely related to your soapbox ramblings ?
Everything. My point being that you'll follow the knee jerk reaction based on no scientific information because a "doctor" told you so, but you won't bother doing your own research into the subject. Case in point: The vast body of evidence showing that parents that feed their kids gads of sugar and preservatives are poisoning their children every day. But these are the same look-down-their-nose bleep that say things like, "so i take it you wouldn't be sad if your child died?"
i'm not telling you you can't feed your baby honey so i don't know what your so mad about.
Your condescending comments, just like those of your ilk, are insinuating that you're making the "better" decision than those who choose to give their kids honey. Because, hey, at least YOU care if your kid dies. Those that give their kids honey obviously don't care at all, right? And yet while being condescending, in every person I've run into, they're the same idiots that poison their kids with tons of other crap because, again, they don't do their research. Since some guy with an "MD" after his name said that canned veggies are healthy if they say "healthy" on the label, then that's good enough for you.
There's nothing quite as insulting as being condescended to by the uneducated. And nobody's telling YOU that you HAVE to give your kid honey. But you've mentioned several times now how YOU do it because YOU CARE if YOUR KID DIES. And obviously WE DON'T. That's what this boils down to. And that's what sparked my frustration about this topic in the first place and has for years: If a parent chooses not to give their kids honey, fine, don't. If you choose to be a vegetarian, knock yourself out. But don't tell ME that I'm a lesser parent when I've actually DONE the research, and you haven't. Don't get on MY Facebook page when I'm offering honey to my family and start wailing about how if they give my honey to my nieces and nephews that it will kill them, and basically saying I'm some idiot for even offering it to families with children. If you're REALLY that stupid, and don't have any intention of rectifying the situation, then it's probably best if you stay off the interwebs.
what i've read is that you shouldn't give honey to children under the age of 1. it's risk/reward. what are the rewards ? unproven propaganda, what are the risks ? also unproven.
By this very notion, this is how we get things like a screwed up dietary pyramid, antibiotics that are put in everything causing weaker immune systems and stronger bacteria, antibacterial hand gel that we continue to use despite clinical studies showing it INCREASES bacterial growth, etc. The benefits of honey are unproven? REALLY? Here's a little list from the Mayo Clinic for you:
* Early evidence suggests that honey may reduce burn-healing time. Additional study is needed to make a firm recommendation.
* Early evidence suggests that honey may help lower blood sugar levels in diabetic patients. Additional study is warranted in this area.
* Preliminary study found honey effective in treating labial but not genital herpes. More research is needed in this area to draw a firm conclusion.
* Currently, there is preliminary evidence that suggests benefit in the use of honey in the treatment of high blood pressure. Additional study is needed to make a firm recommendation.
* Currently there is limited study showing a small benefit in the use of honey in the treatment of gingival plaque and gingivitis. Further study is needed.
* The primary studied use of honey is for wound management... Although honey has apparent antibacterial effects, more human study is needed in this area.
And that's from one page of a 2 second search. Other things we know (from science) about honey: It has a chemical called Quercetin that is an antihistamine. (It's found in much higher doses in the pollen.) The natural sugars are far easier for your body (eg: a BABY'S body) to metabolize than processed sugars or grains.
Then there's the fact that there's a BETTER chance that spores consumed in honey would help BUILD the immune system instead of cause a reaction.
given that i'd be more inclined to choose the lesser of two evils. i don't need to be some high-falutin "scientist" to exercise a bit of common sense. for all of your posturing and lecturing you have failed to even once disprove the theory. a lack of evidence for something is not proof to the contrary.
So if I tell you, "all candy has been proven to cause childhood diabetes" even though this is blatantly false - it's never been proven - it's also never been DISPROVEN. So are you now, as of this instant, going to quit giving your child any sort of candy? I mean, what's the reward there? The risk is every bit as real and significant. And you can quit with the "high-falutin scientist" crap. You were the one that demanded that I qualify my opinion. That's what I did. So now why don't you just go right ahead and exercise some of that there "common sense" you've got and make sure your kid never eats any more candy.
It's almost comical that you think the rule should be that every theory should be believed until proven false. Here's a few theories for you that you should also stick with: Drinking distilled water causes cancer. Exercise causes heart attacks. Swimming pools cause lung cancer.
I could go on forever. Yes, all of these are actual theories, and yes, they ACTUALLY have more fact and research behind them than the one you've chosen to blindly follow with your "common sense."
You do realize that jumping to an opposite extreme is every bit as stupid?
i was going to ask you the same thing.
Really? Is this the part where I'm supposed to say "I know you are but what am I?"
-
:pop:
:lau:
Just on tone of the thread, and sometimes needing to choose sides based on how it is said, and not what is said, I agree with bulldog. I think someone has forgotten to take their blue pill today. :-D
-
Yeah, my boss says I need to work on my "fluff factor." :-\
-
but you won't bother doing your own research into the subject
am i supposed to use children as guinea pigs now ?
Your condescending comments, just like those of your ilk, are insinuating that you're making the "better" decision than those who choose to give their kids honey
and that isn't condescending ?
no, i'm just not going to take your word as gospel when your best argument includes the words possibly, probably, and most likely, or in other words you don't know for sure either.
But don't tell ME that I'm a lesser parent when I've actually DONE the research, and you haven't
again, i'm not going to take your word for anything, i don't know you from adam. you could be a lunatic for all i know.
Don't get on MY Facebook page when I'm offering honey to my family
you obviously think way too much of yourself.
i think i understand the situation perfectly now. you're not mad that kids all over the world aren't gulping honey by the gallon on a daily basis, your mad because your fragile little ego is bruised that everyone isn't listening to your advice as the end all be all.
-
I love to watch a dog chase his tail! :pop: :lau: Sometimes it may just be a bulldog! :pop: :cheer: :lau:
-
but you won't bother doing your own research into the subject
am i supposed to use children as guinea pigs now ?
Your condescending comments, just like those of your ilk, are insinuating that you're making the "better" decision than those who choose to give their kids honey
and that isn't condescending ?
no, i'm just not going to take your word as gospel when your best argument includes the words possibly, probably, and most likely, or in other words you don't know for sure either.
But don't tell ME that I'm a lesser parent when I've actually DONE the research, and you haven't
again, i'm not going to take your word for anything, i don't know you from adam. you could be a lunatic for all i know.
Don't get on MY Facebook page when I'm offering honey to my family
you obviously think way too much of yourself.
i think i understand the situation perfectly now. you're not mad that kids all over the world aren't gulping honey by the gallon on a daily basis, your mad because your fragile little ego is bruised that everyone isn't listening to your advice as the end all be all.
Man... It's like arguing with a five year old. This'll be my last post to you, and I'll try to be real clear so you can understand:
am i supposed to use children as guinea pigs now ?
No, you're supposed to actually do a little research. There's a vast body of evidence about the antibacterial properties of honey. There's also the fact that botulin is a bacteria. Best case scenario, try to grow some spores of botulin out of honey in a blood agar (I have, and I've never had it succeed, but that's hardly a sample size large enough to be conclusive). We have this crazy technology now called the "internet" that allows you to start your research without actually injecting babies with honey. You're being obtuse and you know it.
no, i'm just not going to take your word as gospel when your best argument includes the words possibly, probably, and most likely, or in other words you don't know for sure either.
I've actually shown facts. You've shown... what, exactly? That you're capable of following the fear mongering like a sheep. That's it. Oh, and that you're condescending without bothering to attempt any research... Unless you can do it on babies.
again, i'm not going to take your word for anything, i don't know you from adam. you could be a lunatic for all i know.
This one's probably true.
Don't get on MY Facebook page when I'm offering honey to my family
you obviously think way too much of yourself.
Riiiiiiight. Offering honey to family and friends because you had a good year, then being upset when some uneducated moron starts railing at you on your personal Facebook account is a glaring sign of vanity. Sometimes I think you find condescending phrases you like to use, but you're not really sure where to work them into the conversation.
i think i understand the situation perfectly now. you're not mad that kids all over the world aren't gulping honey by the gallon on a daily basis, your mad because your fragile little ego is bruised that everyone isn't listening to your advice as the end all be all.
Have you even bothered to READ what I've written? Yeah... I've made it pretty clear why I was upset. But if that's what you want to believe is the reason, you just keep right on truckin'. I mean, maybe your "common sense" trumps what I've actually stated as my reason for being upset, even from the first post.
As we're obviously not going to agree, and I see that you're precisely the type of person that I've recently blocked from my Facebook, there's little point in continuing a conversation with you.
I hope you step on a Lego.
-
I hope you step on a Lego.
Okay, that was funny.
-
Oh, and for anyone interested in some light reading, here's EVERY botulism case in the U.S. since about the mid 1990's:
http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?action=search&direction=desc&queryText=clostridium+botulinum&sort=date&subset=mmwr (http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?action=search&direction=desc&queryText=clostridium+botulinum&sort=date&subset=mmwr)
I'll give you ONE guess as to what you'll find has NEVER been determined to be the cause?
-
why do babies have to eat honey in the first place ? if you want to feed your baby honey go ahead, but if it dies you're gonna feel awful silly.
i don't know if it is safe or dangerous or something in between, but it seems to me that if there is the slightest risk why do it ? babies don't have a complete immune system like adults do so they are more susceptible to a number of problems that most adult immune systems can handle better. so i would tend to lean towards the better safe than sorry approach. i also grew up eating dirt and unwashed fruits and vegetables, stepping on rusty nails and chicken or goose poop, wrapping wounds with paper towels and electrical tape that should have gotten stitches or at the very least a good cleaning and all the other things that are bad for you today, but it was mostly done out of ignorance. i still don't clean my cuts properly, but i gave up eating dirt for the most part.
I agree with all the above. We didn't do honey or peanuts when our babies were under 2. Too many other foods to have a pressing reason to introduce those two. Plus, we avoided all sugars until they were old enough to ask for it, including honey.
Not sure how I'd do it today. I'd have to research it more thoroughly. In general, our kids should have guts of steel with all the germs and dirt we get from eating food straight from the dirt.
ETA: Not sure why this thread has gotten so heated. I sell eggs and vegetables, and if I freaked every time someone told me eggs, potatoes and corn were bad for their health, I wouldn't have many customers left. People have all sorts of ideas about diet, and many of them are not based on much but the latest magazine article or fad diet. Shrug.
-
why do babies have to eat honey in the first place ? if you want to feed your baby honey go ahead, but if it dies you're gonna feel awful silly.
i don't know if it is safe or dangerous or something in between, but it seems to me that if there is the slightest risk why do it ? babies don't have a complete immune system like adults do so they are more susceptible to a number of problems that most adult immune systems can handle better. so i would tend to lean towards the better safe than sorry approach. i also grew up eating dirt and unwashed fruits and vegetables, stepping on rusty nails and chicken or goose poop, wrapping wounds with paper towels and electrical tape that should have gotten stitches or at the very least a good cleaning and all the other things that are bad for you today, but it was mostly done out of ignorance. i still don't clean my cuts properly, but i gave up eating dirt for the most part.
I agree with all the above. We didn't do honey or peanuts when our babies were under 2. Too many other foods to have a pressing reason to introduce those two. Plus, we avoided all sugars until they were old enough to ask for it, including honey.
Not sure how I'd do it today. I'd have to research it more thoroughly. In general, our kids should have guts of steel with all the germs and dirt we get from eating food straight from the dirt.
ETA: Not sure why this thread has gotten so heated. I sell eggs and vegetables, and if I freaked every time someone told me eggs, potatoes and corn were bad for their health, I wouldn't have many customers left. People have all sorts of ideas about diet, and many of them are not based on much but the latest magazine article or fad diet. Shrug.
I certainly don't have a problem with a person making a choice on how to raise their own children. I firmly believe it's every parent's right. My initial spin-up came from the umpteeth time since I've started keeping bees where "friends" started yelling and screaming that I was a horrible person for offering honey to my family (I've lots of new nieces and nephews). I feel if you want to "correct" someone publicly, then you most certainly better have qualified your argument with facts instead of a distinct lack of them. This is the core of what got me spun up in the first place. These people know my background, and should know that I wouldn't be going out and offering something (for free) to someone else if I believed there to be the slightest risk to them. If those people determine the risk to be too great and turn down the offer, that's certainly not a problem. Again, that's their choice. But when a third party attacks me with a myth based on bad information, it really gets under my skin.
On a much broader scope, in modern society, there's a ridiculous push to eliminate all bacteria from our diets and environments "coz bacturra's bad." I personally firmly believe that this is directly related to the autoimmune disorders that are so much more prevalent today. The anti-honey craziness is just a small portion of this overarching problem. Immune systems cannot be strengthened without exposure to bacteria. Yet we're the only species that have gone out of our way to eliminate those exposures at every possible point, even to the point of putting our children in a bubble precisely when it's most important for their immune systems to develop. They have the natural "passive" immunity from their mothers when they're just a few months old, and this passive immunity can be strengthened through breast feeding. This is precisely when the baby's immune systems should be developing by exposure to natural external exposures: While they still have passive immunity. Retarding the development of the immune system until they have no immunity isn't how nature intended it, nor does it make logical "common sense". But this is an entirely new can of worms that I could be opening here.
But this actually brings me back to my theory on why honey is actually good for very young children. Besides all of the other benefits that adults enjoy, the natural sugars are easier on the baby's underdeveloped digestive system, and IF there are LOCAL spores/pollen/bacteria/etc. in the honey, it can help the baby develop those immunities to the local environment while it still has the passive immunization.
Then there's the well documented antibacterial and antiviral aspects of the honey. Doctors recommend that babies be given their first immunizations at the age of 2 months for the very reason that the passive immunity will soon go away. These vaccinations are almost exclusively the "killed" form of whatever virus they're vaccinating against (they are chemically "inactivated", with chemicals such as formalin). Local honey would (again, theoretically and logically), precisely and naturally mirror this vaccination by killing any bacteria and viruses that the bees have picked up. In theory, one could create a vaccine by growing the viral/bacterial cultures, mixing them with honey, giving the honey enough time to kill it off, then consuming it orally. For obvious reasons, this one would need to be thoroughly tested before I'd EVER recommend anyone give it a shot, but the theory is sound. I will tell you this, though. Streptococcus and Staph cultures, mixed with honey, left for two days, and then separated from the honey with a quarter-normal saline solution (half as salty as the human body) and returned to a petri dish will not grow. Again, hardly a conclusive test, but these are the kinds of weird hobbies I have. (As a side note, while never testing my honey specifically for botulin spores, I have never had any other bacterial growth come from the honey, either).
While they're still doing research on precisely HOW the honey kills bacteria and viruses, we do know that it's a different mechanism than how our current antibiotics work. (Current antibiotics disrupt the formation of cell walls - destroying the structure - so creating a vaccine with bacteria treated with antibiotics is unable to produce the same immune response). Honey seems to kill the pathogens without destroying their structure, which again, in theory, would make it ideal for vaccine production. Perhaps one of the many reasons that honey was used for centuries for babies was because it was the closest thing to a natural vaccine we had, and we didn't know it? But for this reason, it's also why the presence of the spores in the honey (the same spores found in almost every single food source out there) may in fact be a GOOD thing, but past history has shown it's never been proven to be a BAD thing.
As a total side note, I do have one nephew that's allergic to nearly everything. Peanuts, milk, etc. I always recommend that ANYONE dilute whatever new food they're trying to feed their baby, and give it in VERY small amounts, and closely monitor for any signs of distress. And this is *any* new food. Not just honey.
So yeah, probably way TL;DR, but this is where I'm coming from. And I didn't call anyone any names this time.
-
Makes sense. I just don't see any reason to give infants sugar at all. And I get very annoyed also when people "inform" me of things I doubt they know a single thing about. Especially when I'm trying to make my living from what they're attacking. However, since it's someone else's health or their perception of it, I don't feel qualified to insist on my views. My husband nearly died of salmonella as a toddler, so it's not like all germs are welcome in a baby's system or can be fought off easily.
-
And yet some more light reading. What can honey do that our current antibiotics cannot? Kill MRSA. So something that can kill MRSA, and we're supposed to believe that the spores from botulin are still alive in it? Reallllly...
Clinical Study - Seven patients cured of MRSA with honey (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17927079?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)
A paper where a hospital has been successfully using honey dressing for chronic MRSA infections (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17113690?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1)
Honey cures MRSA in an immunosuppressed patient (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12171686?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1)
A little quote from the first one:
"Full healing was achieved in seven consecutive patients whose wounds were either infected or colonised with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antiseptics and antibiotics had previously failed to irradicate the clinical signs of infection."
-
As we're obviously not going to agree, and I see that you're precisely the type of person that I've recently blocked from my Facebook, there's little point in continuing a conversation with you.
that's funny, because i was just about to send you a friend request :roll:
-
As we're obviously not going to agree, and I see that you're precisely the type of person that I've recently blocked from my Facebook, there's little point in continuing a conversation with you.
that's funny, because i was just about to send you a friend request :roll:
There's no rule that says friends can't disagree. :-D
-
Botulism is more a condition than a disease. Botulism victims usually eat contaminated food that has been improperly stored, especially foods improperly prepared, preserved, or home canned. By eating improperly prepared or caned food contaminated by the botulism organism you are consuming raw or pure botulism toxin. To survive and reproduce in great enough quantizes to be of concern, the botulism organism must be incubated in the ABSENCE of oxygen. Therefore the legitimate concern with botulism poisoning in caned and preserved food.
Even though the botulism toxin is used in plastic surgery (you’ve heard of Botox injections haven’t you) botulism toxin is deadly stuff. The ingestion of just a tiny amount of botulism toxin will kill you by paralyzing your heart and lung muscles long long before the first botulism bacterium or spore can reproduce inside you or infect your intestinal tract.
I don’t know if this is true or not but one lecturer said that just one index finger dipped in pure botulism toxin could hold enough poison to kill 100,000 people. :shock: :shock: I know it sounds scary, but who can get one hundred thousand people to stand in line just to lick a strangers’ index finger? I can’t get one person to even pull my index finger. :evil: :-D What the OP was concerned about in my honest opinion is the complete lack in America today of that most uncommon of attributes… COMMON sense.
Before we abandoned our children to be raised by the state instead of by their parents, both granulated sugar as well as white corn syrup (a.k.a. Karo syrup) was fed in home made baby formulas to every American infant who was not still nursing. The Nanny State in the form of those all knowing but little thinking WIC nutritionist even now recommends that you feed your infant white granulated cane or beet sugar in home made baby formula instead of corn syrup because the good people at Karo syrup GASP, found a botulism spore or two floating in their product just like those spores found floating in Mother Nature’s own honey, OMG we’re doomed. Edna, you better shut that fall out shelter door you hear, you‘re letting in the germs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_botulinum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_botulinum)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090805160028AArmg9o (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090805160028AArmg9o)
-
Botulism is more a condition than a disease.
Very true. Botulism is the condition caused by the ingestion of the toxins created by the C. Botulinum bacteria. Also, as this toxin generally gets produced in an anerobic environment, this is also why the symptoms can last so long, and take so long to develop in the human body. The vast majority of deaths from botulism are actually caused (as you said) by eating foods that were preserved ineffectively, and the toxin has had an opportunity to build up. No matter how much you boil the preserves, you cannot remove the toxins. This is also why when a doctor told me that we needed to be sure to boil our canned foods for 10 minutes before eating so we didn't get botulism, I wanted to rip his medical license off the wall.
I don’t know if this is true or not but one lecturer said that just one index finger dipped in pure botulism toxin could hold enough poison to kill 100,000 people.
That definitely sounds about right. It only takes one microgram of toxin to kill a human. To put this into perspective, a paperclip is about ONE MILLION micrograms.
But to reiterate (while I know you're in agreement) spores do NOT equal toxin. Particularly not spores that have been marinating in a known antibiotic.
-
... But to reiterate (while I know you're in agreement) spores do NOT equal toxin. Particularly not spores that have been marinating in a known antibiotic.
Are you speaking of a known antibiotic like honey? Or Karo? Or vinegar? Or salt? Or granulated sugar? Or even high specific gravity HFCS?
Gee, do you 'recond' that the reason our ancestors used these shoo nasty nasty things in the past to preserve their foods was because they knew instinctively that these shoo nasties killed or at least lulled to sleep botulism spores?
Legend has it that Alexander the Great was buried in an sarcophagus filled with honey so as to preserve his mortal remains. If that is true it is a powerful statement to the true antibiotic properties of honey. In that case honey is antibiotic enough for me and honey should be antibiotic enough for the most picky of eaters.
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/06/12/154593662/to-sniff-out-childhood-allergies-researchers-head-to-the-farm (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/06/12/154593662/to-sniff-out-childhood-allergies-researchers-head-to-the-farm)
:evil:
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/06/12/154593662/to-sniff-out-childhood-allergies-researchers-head-to-the-farm (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/06/12/154593662/to-sniff-out-childhood-allergies-researchers-head-to-the-farm)
:evil:
HA!
"It looks like with our modern conditions and cleanliness that we have fewer and fewer germs to fight off," Nish says. Our immune systems protect us by learning to fight off foreign invaders, whether they're harmless or not. We can't train our defenses if we don't get exposed.
On a much broader scope, in modern society, there's a ridiculous push to eliminate all bacteria from our diets and environments "coz bacturra's bad." I personally firmly believe that this is directly related to the autoimmune disorders that are so much more prevalent today. The anti-honey craziness is just a small portion of this overarching problem. Immune systems cannot be strengthened without exposure to bacteria.
I'll have to look into this "hygiene hypothesis". Makes too much sense.
-
Unfortunately there is a lot of deceptive or even outright false information out there and diet authors, TV personalities, and seminar lecturers all are trying to turn a buck off our ignorance. This "Mommas don't let your babies grow up to eat honey." business is just one tiny tiny part of the problem. This American problem is not even a new problem. if you will look at the history of food fadism you'll discover a whole rogues gallery of ner-do-wells and even the occasional criminal. We're speaking of the likes of men like The Rev. Sylvester Graham, Doctor Benjimin Rusk, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and a host of other charlatans.
I am including the little gem of a link shown below to prove to some that much of the wonderful, great sounding, shiny new 21st Century advice so many of you hear and heed is little more than a dangerous bunch of hokum bunk.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/baby-breastfed-by-vegan-mother-dies/ (http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/baby-breastfed-by-vegan-mother-dies/)
The infant above died (if that is a foreign concept to some it means the child assumed room temperature) and it died at less than one year of age from being fed a fad diet of nothing but good old fashion pure 100% natural mothers, milk. No honey for this baby. Now I want you to find me a case of a child assuming room temperature because it ate a little honey. This is not aimed at anyone poster in particular, but some of us really really need to get out more.
The link below proves the mother of the dead child did NOT eat honey as per her own statements to the authorities.
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm (http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm)
-
It seems this thread is bringing out behavior that is not looked at favorably here at Beemaster. Lighten up a bit and refresh your self of the rules here:
http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/board,97.0.html (http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/board,97.0.html)
We have seen a few long time posters push the limits thinking they were immune,but have found out otherwise. If you can't get your point across without name calling,perhaps take a minute and evaluate what your point is. You may have a more sensible response.
Keep it civil and polite.Personal attacks and name calling have a short life here.
-
I thought it was ridiculous when after Milena of people putting honey in infant formula they decided to target honey as a source of botulism when it's in every raw food. But when they kept escalating it from 6 months, to a year to two years it was even more ridiculous. It is probably wise not to feed any raw food (including honey) to a baby under six months as they don't have the acidity in their digestive system to break the spores down and botulism can live in their gut. Once their digestive system changes over to solid food it is far to acidic to be an issue. But they are all getting exposed anyway by the dirt in the air and on the floor...
-
SICK SICK SICK........the reason all the bot & ecoli come from Ca. is because they fertilize with raw cow poop... should be at least 1 yr old or more...
-
.... the reason all the bot & ecoli come from Ca. is because they fertilize with raw cow poop...
You're not blaming that wonderfully healthy organic food are you? :evil: :roll: