I received an email shortly after my previous post went up, from a state regulator who occasionally writes me with comments. I can’t identify this person, since the few email exchanges we have had have been on a confidential basis, but here’s an excerpt of what the person said:
“I was so disappointed about some out-of-line personal attacks against friends on your blog, I vowed to stay away. But, ever optimistic, open-minded, and curious about better ways to approach this public health/personal choice controversy…was compelled to write a note to say thanks for this posting…Who knows, could become a model for other states.”
In a followup email, I learned further that a number of regulator types had felt so insulted and/or intimidated and otherwise unwelcome that they weren’t visiting or, if they were, they weren’t commenting.
I felt a little badly, since I want this blog to be a place where people of all persuasions can comment, and not be run out of Dodge City. I was also surprised, since I thought people in government had thicker skins than that. And that the Internet just thickens them even further. I appreciate that another inhibition may well be the recent signup process.
But what concerned me the most relates to the topic of the last posting–the effort in Michigan to bring the warring parties together in hopes of reaching common ground. I sense that concerns by consumers about “rights” and “control”–the kinds of things Milk Farmer and Blair McMorran worry about in their comments–are upsetting and threatening to most regulators. They’re used to working in a world where citizens draw back in fear and respect when the regulators show up. The idea of open debate, sometimes punctuated by sharp verbal jabs, is foreign to them, stuff to be avoided at all costs. It’s why the California Department of Food and Agriculture refused to participate in Sen. Dean Florez’s hearing on raw milk last April.
It makes me wonder how much “common ground” there really is, not only in Michigan but elsewhere. Good will is helpful to a point. But things have a way of breaking down when it comes to defining “protection.” Consumers of raw milk are willing to leave much of that to the farmers who supply the milk, while regulators usually have more grandiose, and troublesome, ideas.
I understand the needs of regulators. They need to justify their existence. And they don’t want to be placed in the position of having to explain an illness in a world of zero tolerance.
I’d like to see some of the alienated bureaucrats return here and tell me why I’m totally wrong.
I spent some time in the Appalachia mountains when I was in high school, we were digging a hole for a septic tank and putting a tin roof on a house. The people we were working for were living in conditions reminiscent of a third world country. Thing is, they were organic farmers, selling mostly to local markets and migrating south when the snows came. They shared with me some of their natural disease and pest fighting tactics and I decided that if this is what organic was then it needed to be nurtured and these people supported.
Instead I’ve seen large farm operations get in on the organics craze and find copious loopholes in the wording of the laws to use to their advantage.
If there isn’t some kind of regulation to ensure the safety of raw milk, when its consumption becomes more widespread (which I believe it will) most consumers will be in danger.
As raw milk stands now, the consumers of such are self-educated and usually knowledgeable about the dairy from which their milk is coming. When raw milk gains popularity there will be people who turn to it as a food source that perhaps don’t have the same self-education. Marketing will have more sway and large agribusiness will have more opportunity to adulterate the production of good, high-quality raw milk.
I think this is something that is going to happen. Things like this will not lay back down quietly once they’ve been stirred up. In my own humble opinion I believe that standards for excellence should be set now that encourage wholesome and humane farming practices that result in a safe, nutritious product.
We all know how, when not treated right, volatile raw milk can be. The answer isn’t to regulate it into the ground though, but to promote regulation that encourage safe and humane practices and test directly for pathogens. Isn’t that just good sense?
We raw milk drinkers, and libertarians in general, wonder what has happened. How did the base rules for behavior in the United States flip from a presumption of individual rights to a presumption of control? We are rightfully exasperated and sometimes angry that we citizens of a constitutional republic must come to the table at all, let alone in a position of weakness, to assert our rights. From my perspective, the very framework of such meetings is unwelcoming. My rights have been run out of Dodge City by intrusive, unconstitutional laws and regulations. Why do I have to convince a regulatory system to allow me to eat what I want, to raise my family the way I want, and to participate in commerce with others trying to do the same?
Does this attitude make me unwelcoming? Unreasonable? Rebellious?
My very short list
1 Approval of filthy confinement dairies along with unhealthy cows resulting
in unhealthy products.
2 The use of badges and guns and the courts and the news media against
farmers producing raw dairy from garss fed clean healthy cows.
Is this really about food ?
3 Unreasonable fearmongering against any kind of consumption of raw dairy by
the eldery.
I am sorry my attitude is so unfavorable toward the food safety experts but the above are just a few of the reasons why. Comments are welcome.
Yes, I’m extremely sorry that these poor regulators and other officials had their feelings hurt and are now too afraid to visit David’s blog.
The National Farmer’s Union in UK has a "reasonable risk" position:
"…In some cases the way for Government to manage risks is to give people information and choice, in others it is to regulate.
In general, information and choice would seem more appropriate where the risks are voluntary, small, and well-characterised. Regulation is generally more appropriate for large, involuntary or uncertain risks.
For example, BSE in cattle was seen as such a potentially large, unknown and pervasive risk that regulation was the appropriate way to manage it. [Ignoring what Mark Purdey wrote about Mad Cow Disease, of course. – Blair]
On the other hand, the microbiological risks associated with drinking raw milk, whilst considered unacceptable by scientific experts, are seen as a case for individual choice and information.
At least in England and Wales. In Scotland the sale of raw milk is prohibited, underlining my point that precautionary action is in the end a judgement…"
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/speeches/formerspeeches/johnkrebs/nfuspeech
I was pleased to learn that regulators read this blog. And though I throw insults at the FDA and Health Departments in general, I truly do apologize for any hurt feelings of individuals – especially the ones that are curious enough to read this blog. I miss the (respectful) dialogue.
David asked if it true give and take is possible. I think it is – but rarely.
-Blair
David,
Did that regulator type who emailed you, also comment on the supposed govt type posters who were out-right rude and insulting to those who did not believe as they?
I wasn’t too focused on the nay-sayers, and it was hard to distinguish between the no-names that seemed to switch identities, and always seemed to have names beginning with ‘c’….but I did sense that there was at least one person that was seeking a genuine dialogue, and I think that we did not honor him/her. This is why I like Gumpert’s recent sign=in requirement – it was baffling trying to sort out who’s who…
I was more embarrassed at the pro-raw milk crowd’s insults than the con-raw milk insults. -not that we were worse, but I do think we behaved badly – also more inspired – but dang, I wanted us to be more engaging. Hopefully, this blog will recover and be what it could be.
-Blair
I think it amusing that out of line personal attacks can drive a person away from this blog.especially one whose cohorts have been off line, attacking raw milk producers on a regular basisabsolutely laughable. We all know many bureaucrats penchant for telling lies….
Fact is, raw milk is a threat.
Raw milk threatens those that believe what authorities have told them. If raw milk is everything that those of use who drink it know it to be, then the Big Lie is exposed. How unsettling it would be for millions more folks to find out that those who have been charged with protecting us, with making sure that our diets are healthy and full of what we need, have been pulling our legall to the benefit of large corporations and food processors and distributors. Every time they come out with another attack on raw milk, its just another nail in the coffin.of truth. Every time we see an underhanded, back door effort to gut legislation that will allow the free flow of the good white stuff, the revolution that will result, becomes more vehement. Every time we see some self righteous state regulator go undercover, or a state health department bust some farmer, the pedestal of their authority is eroded.
We are going to do raw milk with or without them, and they are starting to realize that. Many efforts by authorities are now desperate efforts to get the raw milk explosion under their controlunder the guise of protecting people. Shameful.
No Davidno bureaucrats will come. Not even ones feigning outrage at personal attacks. they cannot withstand the brightness and clarity of the Light of Truthlet alone the scrutiny.
Thanks for the effort thoughlol
Alexis’ post makes sense to a point. I do agree that as with other unscrupulous corporations, there will be those who are trying to turn a fast buck and damn the consumers. Who determines how far regulation goes? If raw dairy is sold, should it be limited to a certain radious?
What standards will be "forced" upon the dairy farmer? Notice, I said "standards" not regulations. If OP gets the HIPPCAT(sp) passed, how will small dairies be able to afford all that testing? I’ve no doubt it is expensive. I am all for basic standards to ensure that those who produce foods for consumption are educated. Of course, I’d buy from those who exceed the basics, pay more? Of course I would; safety is important as I am sure anyone would agree.
Our govt supposedly "regulates" the "safety" of the food in America, they have done a poor job so far. If they were doing a ‘good" job of it, the illnesses and contaminations would be decreasing not escalating. There is an email floating around with a photo of a skull candy for Halloween that is contaminated with Melaminine. There are stories that various contaminated candies are still on the shelves in Ut, Min and I think Mass, they’ve been there since at least the begininng of Sept. Now, how is that protecting Americans? As for the inspections of the slaughter houses, I’d not believe that those inspectors didn’t know what was going on. I don’t need nor want thier type of "protection".
Many have made valid points regarding the tactics of the govt entities invading farmers and allowing large corps to continue as they are. On the ballot in CA. We get to vote in regards to animal confinement. Supposedly the costs of eggs will go up 20%.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_2_(2008)
To show I’m sorry I’ll meet you halfway. You are entirely, 100% correct that drinking raw milk is like playing Russian roulette with your health when it applies to commercial milk from industrial, large scale confinement operations. No one in their right mind would think that animals kept in manure-filled feedlots or living their lives in concrete "comfort stalls" would produce healthy milk, and you’d be insane to drink from that bulk tank. So how about you admit that maybe, just maybe animals raised on pasture and other foods consistent with their evolution can produce milk that is safe and healthy to consume in an unprocessed state? After all, animal husbandry was invented around eight thousand years ago and I think that by now farmers have pretty much figured out how to do it right.
I remember those insulting posts, and couldn’t keep track of the source – but your keen replies (and others) were so on target; backed up with facts, that I considered the case closed. It was frustrating that they rarely addressed the issues raised. Big wall raised by the people we pay, huh.
You point out the failure of food safety regulators to ensure a safe food supply. I’m sure they don’t see, or don’t want to see their role in all this – they’re just doing their job – with no personal consequences attached to America’s declining health. There are over 3,000 food additives approved by the FDA, and none of them have had any long-term safety studies, let alone what happens when they are combined in any product.
Enter China, and the obligation to trade with them for the next several decades until our debt is cleared…. but boy howdy, they’re bound and determined to stomp out raw milk…you do what you know how to do.
Milk Farmer and others who insist regulators deserve no sympathy – I agree with your perspective, but I submit that the people who joined this blog had at least a small desire to understand pro-raw milkers logic?
Don Neeper, I hope they read your last post 3 times. No – 5.
-Blair
Just a thought.
I believe at the root of this all is a need to focus on and encourage small scale farming and local produce. Focus needs to be shifted away from gigantic agribuisness. Of course, that’s where the money is, and those in control will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.
When I try to wrap my mind around all the complexities and issues surrounding something so seemingly simple as pure, unadulterated milk… well, it makes my head spin.
Google Halloween Candy May Be Tainted
The article is published in The Bulletin Philadelphias family newspaper Oct. 29.
AND IT IS NOT JUST CANDY.
The regulators are powerless and inept, welcome to globalization!!!
Pure natural, unadulterated, unboiled, raw dairy from clean, healthy grass fed LOCAL cows is a different story. Raw dairy could, perhaps, maybe, possibly, might contain a bad germ and maybe someone could get sick.
How can I come to any other conclusion than the regulators and the regulartory system has totally failed and their focus is entirely upside down?
This WSJ oped article shows that is the case and it wont get any better no matter who wins the election.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12253872418278233.html
Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution
by Andrew Napalitano
I don’t think anyone here has a problem with non-raw dairy consumers, nor do I believe that anyone here wants substandard products. I believe that people consume raw dairy and other "healthy" foods for better nutrition. Why should the govt entities want to take a person’s right to choose what they consume away?
I choose not to consume fast foods, I shy away from most processed foods, what we don’t grow, I buy most foods locally. It is a choice. I don’t berate those who eat the fast, processed foods or raw meats/fish. That is thier choice. I don’t try to force my beliefs onto others and I appreciate they not try to force thier beliefs onto me. What is so difficult about that? I promote the local farmer’s market in my area to anyone who asks. Earlier this spring I had stopped at the UC Davis farmers market east of Sacramento and saw they had tomatoes, I knew they’d probably be hot house as it was too early in this area for tomatoes. While at the register, I just happened to ask if the hothouse was at that farm or in Davis. The girl said they were hothouse from Mexico. I was floored. I did not purchase them. I told her I figured they were hothouse, I expected them to be UC Davis’ hot-house not from another country. It was very disappointing.
"Can any of us make the statement "There is no melamine from China in me"? "
Things that make you go, Hmm? My daughter was 14 when she passed her first stone. Does make one wonder about it. What else is in the food chain? Surely that isn’t the only poison that has been added.
I would like to comment on personal attacks in general. I think there is no place for them. I stopped reading comments on The Complete Patient when I saw some particularly hurtful accusations thrown at Mark of Organic Pastures in a previous string. I think that there is no place for personal attacks on anyone who comments on yours or any other blog. I recently deleted a hateful diatribe on my own blog. I just won’t tolerate that kind of incivility.
Let’s discuss issues and leave personal attacks out of our discourse. It is the only way to progress in our understanding, and frankly, to win our detractors over. As owner of this blog, I believe you have a right to delete any comment that contains vitriol directed at a person. Perhaps then people would learn to behave.
For raw milk drinkers, we should set the high tone. For those who have read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, you may recall that raw milk drinkers had extremely good character and strong morals! Let’s teach by our example. This blog may be our one shot at winning over someone in a very high position that could change everything!
Kimberly
Regulators and government bureaucrats of ANY stripe are NOT your friendies, they are your jailers.