What were the circumstances at the Simsbury Town Farm Dairy in Connecticut that might have led to four children becoming ill from E.coli 0157:H7?
One of the farmers who helped run the dairy through this past spring, Theresa, provides a lengthy account of the nonprofit dairy’s operations, in a posting on Yahoo’s Raw Dairy listserve. Perhaps most revealing, from the perspective of discussions here, is this statement:
The suggestion we let things slide before we left is completely untrue and an attempt to find someone to blame in a tragic event that could happen to anyone. We had a testing regime that was above and beyond what is required, or what the original farmer had in place, and are fanatical about sanitation practices, and keeping any abnormal or high SCC milk out of the tank as soon as we realize there’s a problem. We are not cheerleaders for raw milk, and discouraged new customers from drinking it, but we believe it should be available if people understand the risks, and accept responsibility for them.
(To read the full account, you have to be a subscriber to the Raw Dairy listserve on Yahoo, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/)
From a business point of view, Theresa paints an unflattering picture of the farm’s operator, The Friends of Town Farm Dairy.
Theresa relates a story of conflict among the several farmers involved in running the place. When we were hired, we thought it was going to be great to work for that farm, it had a good business plan and a model based on being generous to the poor and educating the public. It was in the process of transitioning from a private business to a non-profit,
but we had no idea how badly that was going when we came. Dairy farming, especially with on-farm processing, is hugely capital intensive, but the organization had not come up with the money, and had no plan, except to continue to borrow everything without compensating the original farmer, who was now the farm manager. We were horrified when we found out, but also couldn’t do a lot about it except agitate on his behalf.
Eventually, the original farmer departed, leaving Theresa and her husband in the lurch, and they left as well, this past spring. Im not sure of the entire time lines here.
As far as possible pathogens in the milk, though, Theresa provides the following clues:
There were some high somatic cell and coliform counts in advance of the illnesses. We had one test with a high SCC (somatic cell count) in early June, as well as a high count from the same batch from the state. One person called saying they had a stomach ache. We offered a refund, and immediately took the cows indicated to have a high cell count out of the line.
The farmers were very attentive to cleanliness. I’ve never seen a cleaner farm or tasted better milk; this is something that could happen to anyone, at anytime, despite their best efforts.
There were no signs of E.coli 0157:H7. No e.coli has shown up in any of the samples we have from that time period, says Theresa. High SCC indicates infection and is a shelf life and quality issue, not a contamination issue. After we left, one of our former employees called to say there was a high coliform (not e.coli, that’s separate) test result,. We discussed possibilities with her (wash temp, new milkers not following procedures, cow shedding bacteria), and ultimately they decided to suspend sales.
If raw milk was responsible, it affected a very small number of the total consumers. According to Theresa, We are not completely convinced it was the milk. After all, we bottled and sold 200 gallons of raw milk per week, so many more people consumed it and did not get sick. I offer our sincerest apologies to the affected families if it was the milk, but we were doing everything we could to ensure a safe, quality product, and had no indication of e.coli while we were there. We left for unrelated reasons, and had hoped a new farmer with no history with the old farmer could set things right.
Theresa is obviously not trying to squirm out of a legal problem, or she wouldnt have provided the account she provided on a public forum. Two facts stand out to me: First, no E.coli has been discovered. Second, hundreds of people consumed the milk each week (200 gallons gets poured into the glasses of many more family members), yet only four people became ill.
Might it make sense for the health authorities to examine closely the health histories and eating habits of these four individuals? Or perhaps more to the point, it’s obvious there is as much or more that we don’t understand about this situation, and similar situations involving food-borne illness. Why not try to learn from it, and others like it, rather than simply use it to further “pro” and “anti” agendas? (Thanks to Don Neeper for alerting me to Theresa’s posting.)
This is just an observation, but it sounds very similar to the OPDC 2006 outbreakhigh somatic cell counts and high coliform counts and no sign of e.coli 0157:H7 in the milk when it was tested before the point of sale.
I wonder if they use the same type of test that OPDC uses for E.coli 0157:H7. It was designed for juice, not milk. I believe Dr. Michael Payne discussed this in the CA SB 1735/ 201 hearings. He questioned the validity of this testwhen used for raw milk.
I did appreciate her apology to the families/children. Its worded in a way that acknowledges the possibility that it could have been the milk, but also leaves the door open for other sources of contamination.
According to Theresa, We are not completely convinced it was the milk. After all, we bottled and sold 200 gallons of raw milk per week, so many more people consumed it and did not get sick. I offer our sincerest apologies to the affected families if it was the milk, but we were doing everything we could to ensure a safe, quality product, and had no indication of e.coli while we were there.
Were these four children first time drinkers of raw milk?
This statement caught my attention,
"The farmers were very attentive to cleanliness. I’ve never seen a cleaner farm or tasted better milk; this is something that could happen to anyone, at anytime, despite their best efforts.
I read this statement and once again wonder if it is worth the risk to give children raw milk. It only takes as little as 10 cells of 0157:H7 to infect a child.
I’m a broken record on this point, but isn’t there a recurring "theme" with these pathogen testing regimens used by the raw dairies? Perhaps they are not working; perhaps the tests are not good and providing a false sense of security? Isn’t that a possibility? Yet, at the same time, high SCC and/or SPCs have been seen more than once before illnesses were "linked" to a dairy…
"Second, hundreds of people consumed the milk each week (200 gallons gets poured into the glasses of many more family members), yet only four people became ill."
Nothing new there – millions consume ground beef, tomatoes, peppers. Outbreaks usually occur in a specific timeframe as a result of a combination of things going wrong – IMHO, the key is to be honest and look back at these outbreaks to see if there could have been a way to prevent it (and make changes – often it is more than an unpreventable "mistake"). I applaud the people from this dairy that spoke out and shared information that appears to be honest and open.
http://www.marlerblog.com/Missouri%20vs%20Copeland.PDF
Is it worth the risk of feeding children processed foods? Over the last few yeas, there has been an increase in food contamination. If you sterilize the food then you rinder it useless.
"the key is to be honest and look back at these outbreaks to see if there could have been a way to prevent it "
First there needs to be a difinitive source, otherwise they do not know where it came from and cannot determine how to prevent it.
We seem to have a lot of stamina on this issue, and I think that is good (because I’ve gained huge respect for your knowledge, research, and great links). But, we continue to disagree, for esample:
"Is it worth the risk of feeding children processed foods?"
How about not feeding processed foods OR raw dairy to children, per cp’s comment? Just a thought. There is no evidence that kids are less obese or otherwise better off after drinking raw milk other than some emotional testimonies. If the parents with kids on dialysis due to E. coli O157:H7 linked to drinking raw milk similarly put their testimonies together in one place on the internet,ouch for raw milk.
"First there needs to be a difinitive source, otherwise they do not know where it came from and cannot determine how to prevent it."
It would be a great mistake to wait for "definitive" conclusions from the government. Farmers, advocates, and others that care must act on evidence available and get ahead of government…you gonna wait around for them to tell you what to do? BTW, denying these raw milk illnesses isn’t going to help raw milk (coming from a point of view that incudes some sympathy for your free choice situation). If there might be a problem, work on it and don’t depend on government to fix it, Just my 2 cents.
Also, if you need a lab to give you negative E. coli O157:H7 results to make you feel good -Darth is available for a price – I have a lab that will NEVER find any pathogens in your milk or cows and my prices are competitive.
Gerd (the disorder of the last 20 years) is more prevailant now than 50-60 years ago. Have diseases decreased since 1900? Has heart disease decreased since 1900? Has cancer? Arthritis? Diabetis? Autism has increased, ALS has increased. Alzheimers?
Many people don’t see any problems with processed foods or raw fish or raw milk. I wouldn’t tell them what they should or should not eat nor feed their kids, and I would hope that others would give me the same respect. I doubt that a web site/posting from the parents of children would affect raw milk sales.
If you were to compare the small amount of people who are sickened from raw milk (when obtained from a reputable dairy) ( I am not minimizing those who’ve had severe disabilities from the raw milk) If you compare them with all the other food born illnesses, the raw milk in a very small slice of the pie.
Amusement park rides are very dangerous, I don’t see them shutting down. Have the farmers of the spinach contamination been shut down? How about the dairy that sickened the 1000s in the 80s, are they still in business? School busses many have no seat belts, and many drivers have poor training- a horrible hazard for kids.
If you wish to live in a bubble, that is your choice.
Lordy, I would never dream of waiting around for anything from the govt. I don’t depend on the govt for anything. The govt has a perfect track record for being inept, more so lately. The govt has a history of false accusations and no proof. The recent tomato fiasco is a good example.
I’ve not denied any illnesses from raw dairy nor any other food. I don’t have any fears of E-Coli or any other bug so I am not in need of any labs.
Darth
If concerned reader was truly concerned, work on the over medication of our children, a true problem. The feeding of raw milk will only improve the health of children.
To say that children are collateral damage and will get HUS shows that concerned is desperate and will try any emotional untrue statement to get their unjustified and unscientific point across
Yes there are a lot of concerned readers here.
For some reason that gets swept under the rug and doesn’t seem to be much of an issue with the govt.
Again, if you don’t want raw dairy, fish or raw foods, then don’t buy or consume them. It’s a choice.
Stop feeding fast/processed foods to kids. Keep them off amusement rides, any kind of bike,away from sports, stop the over medication, parasites in pools and water parks;the list can go on….It’s about choices.
"Stop feeding raw milk to kids and promoting the practice to naive parents, then I’ll sleep easier. "
If you believe that parents are "naive" and unable to make informed choices then shame on you. What makes your way so right? If you have difficulty sleeping, ask your MD about sleep aids, there are several available, S/he will surely write an RX for you.
It struck me that these adults, parents, children and others who can presumably read English saw the warning yet made an informed decision to ignore it and enter the water anyway. Did any of them get sick afterwards? I tend to doubt it, since most of the people that go to that beach have been frequenting it for most of their lives and if anyone had gotten sick the information would have spread through the community and been reported in the local media. I would imagine that people have been seeing and ignoring that warning for years, playing in the water and not getting sick. Have some people ever gotten sick from going in that water – possibly or probably, but certainly no-one has ever died and if it happens it’s a very infrequent event that doesn’t justify denying children a day at the beach.
The parallels with the raw milk debate are obvious, although those of us that drink raw milk only do so from grass-fed animals raised by farmers we know and trust. Drinking raw milk from industrial confinement dairies would be more comparable to swimming near a large city on the Great Lakes, while drinking raw milk intended for human consumption is more like swimming in pristine Vermont mountain-fed streams. There were life-guards on duty at Edgewater beach, and none of them were censuring parents for allowing their children to play in the water and certainly no-one was being fined or hauled off to jail for doing so.
C2,
I’m sure that you’ll just LOL(!) and say that this is you just being sarcastic, but when you say things like this, your credibility goes out the window.
Sad.
Can we do something about people that post with fake names.
It is a bit chicken… don’t you think. The same chickens that like to hide when the going gets tough.
If we are going to speak we should speak as real persons not abreviated cute little nick names or a set of letters or numbers.
I truly believe your wonderul blog has been slowly taken over by the FDA, drug reps and sterile food lovers.
If you are an American stand and be counted, put and your name behind your words…
Those of us that proudly take on the responsibility to produce and provide living food to our consumers deserve to be criticized by people with real names.
Come out from behind the bushes so we can see you and find out who writes your checks.
Mark McAfee
OPDC
I saw a quart of OP milk at the Nugget in Elk Grove. I’m glad there is a smaller size. It makes it easier to grab and go- when I am on the road and it fits in my lunch bag. I’ve not seen that size at the Co-Op in Sacramento.
Will your kefir be sold in this area?
Thanx
Sylvia
Okay, point taken on the sarcasm and will refrain from it. I’ll retire C2 too – Mark has a point about the anonymous emails, although I see very few posters here using first and last names.
My son’s bone densities went from the 49th-51st percentiles to the 84th-98th percentiles after drinking raw milk for 3 years. Is this not a potentially life-saving improvement? How many children die in car accidents, or are maimed by traumatic brain or spinal cord injury every year? Would some not benefit from a stronger skull or spinal cord?
One study found the incidence of asthma something like 10% lower in raw milk drinking children. Asthma kills 5000 people per year in the US alone. I don’t know how many of those victims are children, but if a pharmaceutical company came up with a drug that could save 500 asthmatics per year, they’d all be on it!
Then there’s the link between vitamin D and cancer. How would the childhood cancer rate change if everyone replaced pasteurized confinemnt dairy with pasture-raised raw dairy?
And I haven’t even touched on the immune system.
Please don’t warn me of the risks of raising my kids on raw milk, until you can quantify the risks of not raising them on it.
"This battle of words is far from over."
Thiat line by C2 got me thinking…
In this very thread a new study is referenced noting a clear benefit to drinking milk with lactobacillus. Many other studies have been referenced before showing other health benefits, as Elizabeth McInerney reminds us above. So why the "no evidence" line? I can only conclude that C2 and other doubters believe that each discovered benefit can be reproduced by adding a certain isolate to otherwise processed, dead product. (If there’s some other reason, C2, please let me know.)
That sort of attitude really puts into perspective the bias some have toward our industrial processes. When the evidence piles up that this or that natural factor is beneficial, doesn’t it follow that there’s something to be said for "natural" itself? Most every biologist, nutritionist, doctor, and even layperson recognizes the intricate synergies present in biological systems. Why do some find those synergies so easy to ignore in the biological chain of food production? I chalk it up to this: Some of us harbor a remarkably strong faith in mankind’s ability to outdo nature.
That is to me looking more and more like a base attitude that will not allow fair analysis and acceptance of raw milk and other natural products.
This article reveals that, after fifteen years of study, the milk fat globule membrane, aka MFGM, contains components that lower cholesterol, inhibit cancer cell growth, inhibit Helicobacter pylori, is an inhibitor of beta-glucuronidase of the intestinal Escherichia coli, contains xanthine oxidase as a bactericidal agent, butyrophilin as a possible suppressor of multiple sclerosis, and phospholipids as agents against colon cancer, gastrointestinal pathogens, Alzheimers disease, depression, and stress.
The article then compels us to consider bovine MFGM as a potential nutraceutical. Thats right. Raw milk contains the benefits that, according to this article, pharmaceutical companies should capitalize on. Pasteurization and homogeniation destroy the MFGM.
Raw milk advocates know that it is better to skip the diseases and the drugs, by drinking high quality raw milk produced by healthy grass fed cows.
Proud to reveal my full name.
We sure are going backwards in time with all our modern technology and thinking. There was something on the news a couple weeks ago talking about the recurrence of rickets in children due to lack of Vitamin D, (although Ive also read that lack of calcium can be a contributing a factor as well.) The recommended solution to this was to reduce the amount of fruit juice kids drink these days and to make sure they have milk with every meal. Of course, I had to change the channel when they went on and on and on stressing that the milk MUST be low fat. From what I understand the Vitamin D is in the butterfat of the milk, and the butterfat helps the body absorb the calcium as well. I guess they figure they are covered by adding synthetic Vitamin D back into the milk. Makes me think the rickets may be caused just as much by the proliferation of low fat milk products as the absence of milk products. The majority of commercial yogurt is low fat and even a lot of cheese is made with skim milk, and whole milk has become a dirty word.
Conversely, if you want any Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, or E. coli to appear out of nowhere, I’m sure that can be done as well.
—————–
"I am a past customer of the Simsbury farm and knew the original farmer
not the new couple. I have not bought milk from the farm in quite a
while and this is why. When I first started buying milk there were
only 8 cows and the place was pristinley clean. Anywhere on the farm
all you smelled was milk and clorox. As the herd grew and the
management changed I noticed a change in the farm. Things were not so
pristine. Still good and gobs better than any other traditional dairy
farm I had been to, but I felt funny about drinking raw milk from a
farm where the personal touch was fading. I needed to trust completely
the farmers and see shiny bright clean happy cows. I did not get
that "happy" feeling when I walked through the barn anymore."
"The clincher came when I read an interview from the new farmer saying
that his family did not drink the raw milk. How are you going to milk
like raw farmers if you don’t dink it yourself? If you know each drop
of milk may end up in your loved one you treat it and the cows
differently. Acceptable standards are different from raw standards as
there is no room for error."
"My advice is to buy from small farmers who drink their own milk and
love their animals personally. Raw milk is not a business or option or
even a right, it is a passion and a lifestyle."
"Today I have 2 milk goats in my backyard they live in a garden shed and
milk in my walkout basement. My family and I could not live without
our fresh raw goatmilk. I feed my animals to produce raw milk, I brush
and clean my goats to produce raw milk, I sanitize for raw milk, and
every drop of the milk born to be raw is treated with the respect it
deserves. And I give it to my family with confidence and pride. If
anyone in CT wants to try to do the same I’d be happy to give you some
pointers.
Kim in CT"
—————–
Posted by the hyper-nonymous…
Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, like vitamins A, E, and K. Lipophyllic (fatty) drug absorption is enhanced when these types of chemicals (or other fatty nutrients like lycopene) are taken along with a fat-containing meal, because "like dissolves like". Therefore it’s reasonable to suppose that eating low-fat foods that aren’t meant to be low-fat could lead to malnutrition.
"Low-fat is most popularly perceived as fundamental to a healthy diet for children and thought to prevent heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases; and to prevent obesity. Except, there is no clinical evidence to support that. "
I’ve never paid attention to fats and calories. I’ve found those that do; may be a tad extreme. Whatever happened to "natural" foods?