in 
Food
Food Saturday
24Mar
The Nuances of Educating People About Raw Milk and Other Real Foods
Saturday, March 24, 2007 at 11:12AM I appreciate the comments on my most recent “giving-thy-neighbor-raw-milk” posting. I suspected my view wouldn’t be hugely popular.
Elizabeth McInerney makes a very convincing argument that NOT making raw milk available is a disservice because it has the effect of continuing practices that promote disease. I appreciate Linda Diane Feldt’s distinctions between what is and isn’t “wild” food.
There were actually some arguments that had occurred to me that weren’t made here. For example, there is that statistic cited in the Time Magazine article about raw milk that up to one-third of dairy-related illnesses come from raw milk, suggesting that more than two-thirds of dairy-related illnesses come from pasteurized milk.
All of the foregoing being said, I stand by my decision in the neighbor situation. I think there is a distinction to be made between what I believe, and how I implement my beliefs. The difference between feeding my neighbor's child spinach and feeding him raw milk is in perception. Spinach is perceived as being a conventional every-day food. Raw milk is perceived as being unusual (i.e. risky) because it hasn’t been turned into a conventional every-day food (via pasteurization).
Some day (in the not-too-distant future, I expect) that perception will change. But until it does, I’m going to exercise caution in educating my neighbor via personal experience. I can tell her how beneficial I think raw milk is, even forward her web site information about it, and encourage her to obtain some. But that is still different than actually giving it to her and advising her to serve it to her son because it will potentially help his immune system.
That gets to another point, brought up by Steve Bemis, who points out that Organic Pastures’ milk wasn’t really to blame in the children’s illnesses I described…and furthermore, implying that raw milk is never to blame in such illnesses. I followed the Organic Pastures episode closely and I’ve spoken with Mark McAfee at length as he’s explained various possible reasons for the fact that several children who consumed his raw milk became ill.
The fact is that the E.coli 0157:H7 found in Lauren Herzog and other children (though no specific bacteria was found in Chris Martin) was different genetically from the E.coli found in those sickened by spinach. Mark has come up with different theories about why the children became sick and they all sound plausible, but the reality is that no one knows for sure, and we may never know for sure. (See my December posting on this subject.) Now maybe there is some new data, but I suspect that will not completely resolve everything.
Mary McGonigle-Martin even proposed a new theory I hadn’t heard before from Mark or anyone else: that the extreme heat of the late summer activated growth of the E.coli.
My point about “wild food’ was simply that there may be naturally occurring events in certain unprocessed foods that alter them in ways that can sicken some people. It could be a cow’s illness, passed along in the milk. Or some chemical event in the milk, perhaps brought on by extreme heat. I guess I don’t accept the argument that raw milk itself will never make a person sick. Not that that fact makes it bad. It gets back to the argument several people make about the expectation that has evolved that somehow our food supply can, and should, be made risk free.
For raw milk, there is likely a slight risk, probably smaller than getting sick from restaurant food, of illness. It just comes with the territory. Here is how Mary expressed it in her email to me: "I'm a health fanatic. I believe in raw milk. I gave my son raw milk because I thought it would be good for him. I believe Mark runs the cleanest dairy humanly possible. But the fact is, my son still got e-coli. There is a risk when drinking raw milk. People need to know this. I think the greatest risk is in the summer months when the temperatures are at their highest. E-coli multiplies in the heat. Maybe there needs to be a warning on the labels about the risk during the summer months."
The problem for me vis a vis my neighbor stems from this expectation issue. If my neighbor expects a risk-free food system, and her son by some slight chance becomes ill after drinking the raw milk I have supplied, there could be a problem. Such people then tend to look for scapegoats—the farmer, the packager…the neighbor. Yes, these people may be unjustly seeking perfection in an imperfect world, but that is the reality. I still have to live with my neighbor, and I’d like to live peacefully.
So I guess this is a longwinded way of trying to explain where I think idealism and reality may diverge, and that there are nuances to the education process we all agree is so important.References (2)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: Got Raw Milk? Be Very Quiet -
Response: Colomarine 69 postall about Colomarine and top news
Reader Comments (18)
First, I would have preferred the Time people to report on milk illnesses in the following way: x% came from raw milk operations which are montitored and regulated, y% came from unregulated raw milk operations, and z% came from pasterized dairy.
My sense is that a good number of raw milk outbreaks come from ilegally imported raw milk soft cheeses (from Mexico). The conditions on these farms are anyone's guess.
As far as the heat argument goes, I would have to see more data. If we look back at all of the raw milk outbreaks over the past 10 years, were they more likely to occur in the summer?
I simply don't buy the proposal that there may be naturally occuring events in raw milk that alter it in ways that can sicken some people. By definition, properly produced raw milk is always safe. If it weren't safe, then it wouldn't meet the criteria for properly produced.
What muddies the water here is that many people can consume improperly produced raw milk without getting sick. I've heard many stories along these lines from dairy farmers who were raised, without incident, on what they now call "dirty milk".
When someone gets sick from regulated raw milk, a mistake has been made. A system that should be perfect has broken down somehow. We need to adopt an attitude of learing from mistakes, rather than one of running from them (pasteurization) or of accepting them as inevitable (fear).
I'd love to know what Mary's future policy will be regarding her son's consumption of raw milk.
As a scientist, when I read something like this, I have to question the soundness of the argument. The term "properly" is of course the escape. Whenever anyone gets sick from raw milk, then it was not "properly" produced. The problem comes from the probability that milk will not be "properly" produced and its intersection with potential health risk severity. In the larger equation one must also consider the health risk associated with pasteurized milk.
Meaning if there is a 0.01% chance (off the top of my head, no idea what the real risk is) that any given quantity of raw milk will contain bacteria that will lead to illness that seems low (except for the person that gets ill). But if the ensuing illness is severe then the impact is greater. Thus turning something with a low probability of occurrence into a social ill.
It is my considered opinion to date (no doubt with some heavy socialization bias) that the health benefits of raw milk (and the health detriments of pasteurized milk) have not been well enough established to justify the risk. I see a lot of hand-waving out there but little hard science.
No system is perfect. There will always be mistakes and errors made. Hence a risk analysis.
If it feels like I am picking on you, I am sorry. Not my intent.
The criteria for properly produced is the following:
1) The milk has not been contaminated with manure. This requires cleanliness on the part of the dairy owner. Cleaning off the udder before milking, cleaning out the equipt afterwards, etc.
2) The cow does not have an illness, like Brucellosis or TB that can be transmitted to her milk and then to consumers. This requires testing.
Pathogens from manure and viruses from the cow are the vehicles for illness from raw milk. They must get into the milk somehow. "Properly produced" means not letting that happen.
Is there some other way you envision raw milk harming people that I have missed here?
As a scientist you will appreciate the difficulty in establishing clear causality in human studies. Our typical western studies, i.e. those with relatively small "n" numbers, are dependent upon that extremely difficult task of precisely controlling related factors (often not even entirely identified!). Those studies are therefore necessarily weak in the area of food/nutrient effects. Anthropological study, on the other hand, which need not control minute factors (since it draws on data from human groups isolated from other groups) is extremely powerful. That data, it turns out, does exist, and greatly supports the health benefits of raw milk. Please go to westonaprice.org for instruction. ("Anthropological" study is also, not incidentally, where we get our most powerful data about the effects of pharmaceuticals, many of which were studied to an obsessive degree, found to be "safe" and then placed in the marketplace only to be withdrawn when negative effects appeared in the population at large.)
Elizabeth is both anecdotally and scientifically right when she says that properly produced raw milk is safe. The reason is that the term "safe" is always relative since, as you noted, even rigidly applied production processes (as well as naturally ocurring biological processes!) are not completely predictable. But the question is more complicated than that. Your point that risk analysis must consider the probablitiy of production errors and severity of illness related to those errors, is only partially there. Individual immune response is just as important, maybe more so, and long term strenthening of our immune systems is one of the reasons raw milk is promoted.
Perhaps trumping all that is the issue of individual rights, which are certainly not well-respected in the area of food choices. Truly, the definition of "safe" should be left to individuals, not bureacrats (or scientists--no ill will intended!) especially when it comes to a food that has been sustaining mankind for millenia.
Can you please point me to the specific article or study that you mention rather than just the WAPF site? I'd appreciate that. I'm sorry but I cannot accept Weston A. Price Foundation web material (other than a link to or reprint from scientific literature) as a non-biased source.
I am truly interested (i.e. I'm not just being a troll) since my family is considering raw milk, but I must have sound research...
As for the rights of the individual v. the collective, there's the rub. Has been for quite some time too.
Cheers and health!
Ken
To that point, I think you made the right decision Dave.
Thanks for the reply.
There can be hidden infections, within the udder, that can pass bacteriological infection on. If each gallon of raw milk where tested (an expensive and, perhaps impossible task) then I would not have an issue but only a sub-samples are tested.
Ken,
Please be more specific.
What pathogens or viruses do hidden udder infections pass on to the consumer?
For a thorough review of the raw milk issue, with a discussion of Weston Price's work, along with the work of other researchers, read "The Untold Story of Milk" by Ron Schmidt
I have not felt that you were picking on me, though I appreciate the concern. I really appreciate the chance to understand your views and concerns.
Thanks!
In my opinion your best foray into food science is via two books. The first was already recommended to you by Elizabeth: The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid. The other is Nutrition And Physical Degeneration, by Weston A. Price.
Dr. Price (a dentist) did some incredible cultural/anthropological study on the relationships between food and health. We are extremely fortunate that he did his research when it was possible to do it, i.e. before mass communication and the development of the worldwide marketplace homogenized societies into largely indistinguishable masses. (Many of the cultures he studied have now adopted enough western habits to obliterate the characteristics that made them uniquely important.) His book will cost you about $30 and can be purchased on the net at this address:
http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=226&osCsid=62b44185f46d7912704ba9478f31ec3d
Now, I must ask you a decidedly important question: What gave you the idea that the Weston A. Price Foundation is biased? And what do you suspect is that bias?
Hopefully that is just the scientist in you expressing healthy skepticism, but my guess is that your suspicions are more cultural than scientific. I say so because most of us use, daily and without a thought, many products (I’m thinking of foods and pharmaceuticals here) purchased from companies that have an extremely strong vested interest in promoting them. That these companies are “biased” and at the very least gloss over the negatives and siren the positives of their products, is undeniable. Yet a quiet voice like the WAPF raises serious suspicions.
For the record, my professional training is in a branch of standard medical science. As a result of that, I ignored alternative views for many years, generally considering groups with an alternative message to be loonies. Truthfully, I never really looked at the realities because, well, because I already knew them. Fortunately circumstances kicked me in the behind, and I am now completely comfortable converted member of the loony class.
And lastly, thank you for the civil correspondence!
Thinking logically - babies are more vulnerable. Milk (and the breast) has to be made to be more impervious to infection, toxins, and dangers. It is interesting to note what does pass through the milk (the AIDs virus, PCBs, etc.) The dangers that have been around for thousands of years (simple bacteria for example) are less likely to be a problem.
Once the milk leaves the breast - a number of things can go wrong. But it does seem to be well designed to mostly stay safe under reasonable circumstances.
There is a scientific theory that gives credance to the number of years a "folkloric" tradition is used - centuries (and in this case thousands of years) of use multipled by thousands (and in this case millions) of consumers can be presented as a valid formula for assigning significance. The last few decades of use/misuse are only marginaly significant especially if you can investigate the circumstances under each case of "raw milk poisoning" reports such as the mixing of statistics of harm using Mexican fresh cheese with cow share useage.
We may not have double blinded placebo controlled randomized trials of raw milk - (the response is too different with each person, you'd have trouble with ethics review boards since the claim is that raw milk is dangerous, it is dificult to prove "immune system enhancement" etc.) but we do have a lot of human history to consider. That is also a valid scientific measurement. Talk to any anthropologist or sociologist.
(I enjoyed your typo Elizabeth - staff infection instead of staph. It brought up some interesting images of a group of workers ... well I'll let your imagination take over rather than risk anything too graphic!)
BTW I'm a sober-sided corporate lawyer who three years ago would not have predicted I'd be spending my weekends and evenings defending raw milk farmers.
I'm sorry that my attestation to my scientist status has distracted and clouded the discussion to some degree. The issues of body and health are very complex and, in my opinion, the science of health is far too Newtonian-Linear-Mechanical. There is far too much a sense of the body as a collection of parts rather than as an ecosystem within the health system. This is not to take away the real value added by the move in the 19th century to apply science to the health of the body. But science in the last century has moved on from the Newtonian-Linear-Mechanical view of reality. The inability to move on so far in studying health is a major hurdle that needs to be overcome.
In the next few weeks (months?) I will be looking to the question of raw milk. If my learning experience and investigation is of any interest to you then please join in the conversation. I will warn here (as I do in my first post on the subject) that I will bias against raw milk so if a challenge to your understanding of raw milk does not sound attractive, this series of posts will not likely appeal to you.
http://healthpoints.blogspot.com/