The Complete Patient

From a cursory check of the available literature, L. monocytogenes is one of several strains of the Listeria bacteria and is the only one causing disease in humans. An article on the EcoLab website (http://www.ecolab.com/PublicHealth/Listeria.asp) indicates that Listeria strains are virtually ubiquitous in the environment and in our homes, and that "A study by the Food Product Association showed it is likely that low levels of L. monocytogenes are consumed routinely with limited effect." Interestingly enough, the US has a zero-tolerance for Listeria in ready to eat foods, but other countries permit low levels to be present. The overall listeriosis disease rates are comparable in the US, Europe and Australia, and "prevalence in the food supply does not match the rate of illness in the population..." In other words, the same amount of food-borne Listeria produces differing disease rates in different countries. Therefore, other factors determine who actually gets sick and who does not - overall digestive health and nutrition, perhaps?

Another very technical article (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-10.html) on the detection and enumeration of L. monocytogenes in foods suggests that multiple Listeria strains may be present in samples, and that care must be taken in isolating counts for pathological strains from counts of non-pathological strains. Although the article also indicates that with the FDA's current zero-tolerance for L. monocytogenes, specific enumeration isn't always necessary since even one colony-forming unit is enough to declare a sample to be contaminated!

It's also important to note that the detection process involves enriching and incubating the sample for a period of days, in order to grow a detectable amount of bacteria. That is, they produce conditions favorable to the growth of the specific bacteria they are trying to detect and introduce media that discourage the growth of competing bacteria and fungi. In other words, the sample may have a few of the Listeria bacteria but finding them would be virtually impossible. Therefore, they change the rules and make life much easier for Listeria but much harder for everyone else, wait a bit of time and see what happens.

So, it's possible that the NY state laboratory may be finding detectable levels of Listeria after "enriching" the sample and culturing it in a foreign environment that specifically encourages the growth of that particular bacteria. I'm willing to bet that you can play this game of "gotcha!" with virtually any fresh food in the grocery store and claim some level of contamination. Under normal conditions, a low level of Listeria colony forming units would be out-competed and held in check by the probiotic bacteria and other defense mechanisms present in clean raw milk, which explains why no-one gets sick from this so-called "contaminated" milk.


Sincerely,

Don Neeper

Don....thanks for the great explanation.

The Blog engine included the final ')' in the two URLs in my previous post, so if you're trying to check my sources here are links you can actually click to:

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-10.html

http://www.ecolab.com/PublicHealth/Listeria.asp


Sincerely,

Don Neeper

My guideline for food safety in farmstead cheesemaking mentions that Listeria monoctogenes is "found naturally in silage "and is "found naturally in raw milk (3.5% of bulk tanks evaluated were positive for L. monocytogenes)"
It would be interesting to know if feeding silage increases the chance of having this bacteria in the milk.

This post illustrates the heroic perserverence which farmers require to fight the battle against regulation when it turns arbitrary and/or political in its own right. Consumers need to help. The force of consumer disapproval of regulators' unjustified harassment of small farmers must be heard, because it really does help and when it is expressed civilly, yet in powerful numbers, it changes things. Farmers and consumers who value fresh unprocessed milk and other nutrient-rich foods must remember that we are in this together, not only for our personal preferences and the health of our families, but in the larger picture, for the health and well-being of our very country. Think globally, act locally. Get the facts. Express your opinion. Be the change.

Listeria is refered to as an “intracellular pathogen”. In other words it has the ability to genetically conceal itself inside a cell. Organisms of this nature are very difficult to study.

In an article in the Journal of Microbiology (52) it states, “The ability to distinguish virulent from avirulent strains of L. monocytogenes could potentially reduce unnecessary recalls of food products and help to prevent disease outbreaks…Unfortunately, no reliable molecular method for prediction of L. monocytogenes virulence has been developed.”

Listeria monocytogenes can be found in soil, vegetation, water, sewage, silage and in the feces of humans and animals. Animals and humans can also carry the bacterium without knowing it, but few will actually develop listeriosis. As with most opportunistic infections it affects individuals with weakened immune systems.

Listeria monocytogenes was first described to me a number of years ago by a dairy science specialist as a “soil born organism that is widespread in the environment”. He stated that mastitis associated to listeria although rare is becoming more prevalent especially in well managed herds. In other words in herds where antibiotics are used as a dry cow treatment in an attempt to prevent mastitis. Such herds also use on a daily basis various antiseptic washes, teat dips and sealants. I’ve been there and done it. They do not work and mastitis continues to plague the industry. The only people that have anything to gain from these costly practices are the chemical and drug companies.

There is much said about what is apparently known. However there is much that is not known and for this reason I am leery of any conclusive statements made with respect to the so called infectious nature of these organisms.


Dave

In response to your statement on ruminant digestion, “keep it simple”.

Ruminants need an adequate supply of roughage. Grain is a palatable and nuritious natural food source that can be fed to cattle in moderation. Unfortunately if given the opportunity cattle will indulge on grain and eat it until they sicken themselves.

Continuously feeding an excessive amount of grain without consideration of a cow’s roughage intake will as you suggested increase rumen acidity and create unhealthy conditions that will affect the quality of the milk and or meat. A lingering sour smelling manure is indicative of a herd of cows that have been fed an excessive amount of grain or prepared ration.

I like to ensure that my cattle have a year round free choice supply of dry hay available to them. During the summer even though they have an excessive amount of green grass, you will (especially in the evening) see cows eating hay on a daily bases.

I can remember when antibiotics first came onto the scene. They were indeed a miracle drug. A withholding time for milk was unheard of at that time and the milk continued to flow into the cans or tank. This all sounds vaguely familiar to a time when officials told us that we could drink 2,4-D out of a glass and that it would not harm us. A lot of water has passed under the bridge and it seems we are hell-bent on learning the hard way.

Ten years ago my son William introduced himself at birth as a brow presentation and a C-section was performed.

After his birth I bathed him then accompanied him up to the nursery. I told the nurse that I would not allow her to place antibiotics into his eyes or give him the vitamin K injections. For this I was required to sign a waiver. I also informed her that I wanted to take William to his mother and although the nurse consented she had to carry the child down and would not allow me to carry him.

Latter on that evening Sara’s temperature began to rise and out of concern for an infection intravenous antibiotics were prescribed. To make a long story short and after an extended conversation with the nurse we refused their offer of antibiotics. Two hours latter her temperature was back to normal. The following day we went home.

Ken Conrad

Give me a break with all of this raw milk hoo hah. Milk from a cow or a human breast is sterile, unless the cow or human has mastitis. The "beneficial microbes" in cow's milk that some claim to be so beneficial are skin contaminants from the cow's teat. Have you ever known a child that died from an infection cased by contaminated food, milk, or water? I have. Why take a chance on raw milk when in several studies by universities, raw milk has never been scientifically proven to be better for you than pasteurized milk, in fact exactly the opposite has been found. Or do you believe in the scientific process at all? Louis Pasteur would be shocked.