A Food Regulator's View of California's Raw Milk Mess, Part 1: Coliform Standard Could Be Revised Upward Next Year, OPDC's Regulatory Challenge
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 12:07PM Before I got sidetracked with my Holocaust experience, I had a few things still to report from the Weston A. Price Foundation's Wise Traditions conference. One was a report on a lengthy conversation I had with a well-placed California food regulator about raw milk while in California last week.
I went into the interview expecting a hard-headed ideological attitude, and instead found someone who was more flexible and sensitive than I expected, even if her conclusions were at odds with my own and those of many others who read this blog. She agreed to speak with me on the condition I not reveal her identity on this blog (even whether it really was a "she").
Because she had so many interesting things to say, I am presenting the interview in two parts. In this first part, she assesses the California raw milk situation. In the second, to come sometime in the next few days, she talks more generally about the science around raw milk and disease.
She emphasized that she is not a decision maker, so her opinion is speculative. But she is in a position to observe many of the decision makers, so her predictions carry more weight than many others. The California Department of Food and Agriculture, the author of AB 1735, has been extremely non-communicative about the state's raw milk situation.
Here's what she has to say about California:
The standoff over raw milk in California is likely to be resolved next year via an upward revision in the ten-coliform-per-milliliter standard that is the heart of AB 1735.
"I predict next year there will be a change in the standard," she said. "It will be higher than ten. I don't think the CDFA will oppose it. The CDFA would rather not regulate this one."
Her reasoning? The CDFA never intended to put California's two raw milk producers out of business via AB 1735, despite the view of Organic Pastures' Mark McAfee that its enactment was "a sneak attack."
"I don't think it was a big conspiracy. I think they thought that we'll put it through. They were updating the standards. They wanted to make them all the same (with pasteurized milk). They were not looking to shut raw milk down."
She does acknowledge, though, that, "If that was a regulation that was going to affect big dairies, the CDFA would have been on the phone with the Western Dairy Council."
But, she adds, in a statement that seems almost designed to stir passions, "Mark (McAfee) keeps having problems" with illnesses and pathogens, "whereas Claravale has never had an outbreak."
To the argument that the 2006 outbreak of illnesses linked to Organic Pastures never turned up any E.coli 0157:H7 in his milking cows, she says, "You don't find E.coli in the cows three weeks or three months later. That's why epidemiology works so well. You find (pathogens) at a certain time at a certain place."
She argues that in each of the two California cases of illness attributed to raw milk--Organic Pastures in Sept. 2006 and a herdshare in July 2008--"there is a spike in the coliform counts and the SPC preceding the outbreaks." (The report from the Centers for Disease Control on the 2006 outbreak does note such a spike, but the California Department of Public Health report on the 2008 illnesses makes no such mention.)
Moreover, the tests for pathogen testing, which were a key component of SB 201, are not very reliable, she argues. "It's a lot of money to spend when there's a 50-50 chance you may have a false positive, or negative." Green onions a few years ago gave a false positive, and led to recalls, when it was really something else. "You can be feeling good and putting out a contaminated product."
Reader Comments (28)
Given the fact that Mark McAfee posts his standard plate counts on his website, it is pretty easy to determine that "her" statement is patently false. If anything, the results from the September tests show abnormally low bacterial counts:
http://www.organicpastures.com/pdfs/Bac_cts_june_08.pdf
On another subject, I recently realized that it has been quite a while since we've heard about a New York or Pennsylvania farm being forced to recall milk due to potential listeria contamination. Perhaps the PDA and NY Ag & Markets have decided that particular line of harassment hasn't done enough to curb demand and is cooking up some new plan of attack?
There are 2 entries for Sept 2006. What happened to the other weeks? Still,These SPC counts shown are well under the threshold. My understanding is that SPC counts are only alarming if they jump logs - an increase of 10,000 - 20,000 is a 'spike'; the rest is normal variation?
The say they weren't looking to shut raw milk down. Why then has there been a constant power struggle over the last 7 years? Then she states McAfee" keeps having problems" - no wonder Mark is exasperated with them.
Biased statements like that are exactly what makes me distrustful - there is no scientific perspective about testing, no objective, supportivel treatment of their customers. I'd like to see paid gov't employees get behind farmers, instead of hearing them tell farmers to get behind them.
-Blair
I don't know where the state would have gotten a time series in the 2008 herd share case only because the raw dairy products were not on the state's radar until the outbreak.
Raising the coliform limit seems far more reasonable. It would be far less costly than the requirements of SB 201.
We fought so hard all last year to have these meaningful discussions and CDFA “stood us up” on every hearing date. We hope that 2009 will bring a change to this lack of open and meaningful communication.
As far as OPDC having on going illness or pathogen problem, I am completely confused as to what is being referred to? Discounting the September 2006 incident, there have been no other alleged illnesses. So…. there are no ongoing illnesses at OPDC. As far as pathogens found in our raw milk….show me one that has ever been found??!! Yes the state found some campylobacter in raw cream after eight days of specialized testing in their labs…but the milk that the cream was taken from was negative. There were no illnesses related to this test or the production time period.
If we had open communications with CDFA perhaps this misunderstanding would not continue. It appears to be just as you have stated…an attempt to just hurt our consumers and the rising interest in RAW MILK.
If a different coliform standard is being contemplated by CDFA, then why haven’t Claravale or OPDC been contacted? This seems like just another behind the scenes move that we will not be involved with. Our input matters and it is relevant.
It is also relevant that the facts are clearly stated. The SPC bacteria counts reported by CDFA during 2006 recall were taken from products on the shelves of stores after a week or more of sitting there….it is simply not fair or factual to say that OPDC product that was produced and sold to stores during the 2006 recall had high SPC counts. This is an untrue statement. Also, all products were pathogen free before and after retail sale. In addition, the SPC counts were lower than permitted for pasteurized dairy products during this period. The old raw milk samples taken from stores were beginning to sour. This is a highly biased statement. Please read the CDFA report, it clearly does not show that the product tested was from the dairy, it was old product and some was even expired. This is clearly just another mean spirited and hateful statement made to hurt raw milk in CA.
It also shows the lack of knowledge shown by CDFA. Sour raw milk is not unsafe raw milk. Anyone that knows anything about biology understands this. Rotten Pasteurized milk will sicken anyone. Soured raw milk will not sicken anyone. Most of the third world drinks sour milk and nearly all of Russian population has historically and even today.
The bottom line is this, if there is a CDFA move to change the raw milk coliform standard we are delighted and invite this change. The sad part is that the consumers and producers know not a thing about this potential change. A coliform standard change requires an act of CA legislature to make this happen. In the final assessment, CDFA must become a part of our democratic society and stop thinking and acting like a Kingdom that rules with edict at their leisure.
PHD does not mean KING of California.
We, the consumers and producers of CA raw milk, are ready to work with CDFA….please meet us at the table. We will drop our lawsuit if we can cooperate on a standard that works. The current model requires raw milk producers to shut down every couple months because of non compliance with standards. Claravale and OPDC have both been degraded and shut down several times each during this year. This is not sustainable.
I am truly excited to hear that this “he or she” regulator at least has expressed the heart felt message of concern that CDFA intent was not to shut down raw milk in CA. That is a very good first step and awesome news!.
We are ready for more steps in this direction and would welcome dialogue and cooperation. The current raw milk lawsuit against CDFA will expose individual CDFA employees for lying to the legislature. Perhaps ( R ) Assemblyman Tom Berryhill’s request during AB 1604 hearings in 2008, where he said that “heads must roll at CDFA” for misleading the Assembly Ag committee will become a reality. We can instead work together and fix this challenge prior to this very embarrassing and perhaps criminal exposure occurring next May 2009.
Perhaps, David Gumpert can moderate and be the great negotiator to make this all happen. He has my trust.
All the best,
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
(Posted by The Complete Patient after Mark encountered technical problems posting.)
There is no respect for the raw milk consumer...and even less for the raw milk producer. If there was the coliform standard wouldn't have magically appeared out of thin air. The inception of 1735 was fishy at best, and when you combine the subsequent actions of the CDFA, all of these 'good tidings' are a farce.
Big Dairy is Big for a reason. Their tentacles run deep in the state agencies that it must deal with (profits are more secure that way). Raw milk will only get a fair shake if the people, applying excessive pressure to the legislature, call these 'boiled milk commies' on their actions. In the light of the Truth, the vermin scurry away.
Words are meaningless, when the action is contrary...
"They were updating the standards. They wanted to make them all the same (with pasteurized milk)."
Isn't the thing all the raw milk producers and consumers have been saying is that Raw Milk is a completely different type of product from pasteurized? From what was said (and I'm being generous) it sounds like the CDFA was just attempting to standardize things. I don't like conspiracy theories and I'd rather believe that something was the result of human nature than the result of some concentrated and malicious effort.
Then again, I'm young and idealistic.
Since I don't (yet) have a vested stake in this issue, being neither producer nor consumer, I'm trying to look at what everyone is saying and find a middle ground that makes the most sense.
I don't really believe in any kind of massive conspiracy to deny people their freedom of choice any more than I believe raw milk is toxic and will kill anyone who drinks it.
I find it far more believable that any concentrated effort to regulate raw milk into oblivion is a result of a deeply-seated cultural fear of bacterias. I also believe that raw milk can be quite dangerous when handled and produced improperly. It's a middle ground. People should be able to eat and drink the foods they want, but they should also be able to know what they're getting isn't going to kill them or their children. Extreme examples of this come from the swill dairies of the last century.
I think, another aspect of the struggle comes from conflicting paradigms. It's a matter of:
If it is not allowed, it's forbidden.
vs.
If it is not forbidden, it's allowed.
Alexis, Isn't this true of all food?
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=06-058
That was a really bad summer for dairy cows. It was bad for me too and I don’t have to sit with a bunch of other cows all day. So many cows in the valley died they ran out of the usual means to dispose of them. Milk production was down something like 25% just after the July heat wave. It probably isn’t a big surprise that the cows were stressed and the milk had a high somatic cell count. Some folks say a high count increases the risk of pathogens which is why I assume the state measures it, but I certainly don’t know for sure. (I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, by the way, about brushing off 1M+ fecal coliform counts as bureaucratic fear over soured milk.)
I expect the reference to multiple outbreaks also has to do with the 2007 campy case that I referred to above, this was OP, not the herd share. I am surprised that Mark hasn’t heard about this case. To create that report, scientists would have descended on the dairy in Dec of 07 to do testing. They did find a common strain in the stool of a sick person and in cow(s) at the dairy. Bill Marler posted the report some months ago:
http://www.marlerblog.com/Cluster%20of%20Campylobacter%20infections(1).pdf
On another point, the issue of big dairy getting a phone call about proposed legislation: of course they would because the dairy organizations make a point of having friends in government. Friends will call you if something is coming down the pike that affects you. If you have no friends there, who is going to call? No one. They don’t know you or they don’t like you. They have no obligation to call. It’s really not a big versus small issue. It’s an issue of how people are playing the game. Big may certainly help, but big could be antagonistic as well and, thereby, be less effective.
I agree, people should be able to consume the foods of thier choosing. As for the 2nd part of your statement, no food has any guarantees for safety. Recent history proves that, to include the pharmacuticals, vaccs, etc.
The movie, Super Size Me, showed what the poisons fast foods inject into people can do to the human body; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me yet, I did not hear of any govt entities shutting down fast foods or forcing changes. Granted, I would assume the average person doesn't consume 5000 cal per day; but over a period of time, wouldn't the consumed toxins be the same in the end? If a chemical doesn't affect one person, but affects another, should that chemical be outlawed?
There's a measure of risk in eating any kind of food or taking any drug. I'm meerly saying that there should at least be enough regulation on Raw Milk to keep a disaster like the swill dairies from happening again. I have every confidence that milk from cows who are pasture-fed and well-cared for is healthy and safe! If it wasn't we wouldn't still be drinking milk after thousands of years.
A large part of being able to be confident about food safety is self-education too. I'm astonished at how many people are, and the level to which people are divorced from the source of their food. You don't have to be on the farm helping to produce the tomatoes or raise the cows, but a little knowledge about how these things are done can go a long way.
I knew someone in college who asked me this question in all seriousness: "So... beef, is that like, pork or pig?" I just blinked at him in confusion.
Thing is I don't know how to fix this system of big agribusiness and marketing that supports unhealthy lifestyles. All I can think of is that nothing but good things can come from supporting small-scale producers and whole/natural foods. I have no idea where to start taking down a giant, so I'd rather concentrate my efforts and my ideas on supporting the Davids of food production.
Oh! I just realized something too. That attitude I've got I've been using to re-forumlate my diet and it's working amazingly well. I don't tell myself that I can't have something. I read ingredients of course and I'll know if something is bad for me, but I don't tell myself I can't have it. What I do, however, is make sure that part of every meal is healthy and whole food. As a result I eat less of the unhealthy stuff and I don't feel deprived. Interesting thing too is a healthy diet supports itself. I can't stomach most sodas and potato chips anymore, too salty and sweet for me.
So, to my mind, if concentrating on including and encouraging the good and healthy is working so well for me to keep me away from unhealthy things, how far could such an attitude go towards changing the face of agriculture?
Now I'm confused. Sorry if this has been covered before. Is the coliform test performed by California able to distinguish between fecal bacteria and bacteria that orginates in the mammary glands?
This is a good question. I don't know the answer, but I did want to comment on the use of the term "coliform". The semantics and sources of "coliform" are often confused. I know dairy producers who insist that all coliforms are are fecal coliforms, and others insist that all coliforms are pathogens. Not so.
I think 'coliform' is generally thought of as bad bacteria by the general public (even though technically they should specify which kind of coliform), but "Total Coliform" "fecal coliform" and "e.coli coliform" (or other specific pathogens) are used as more technically accurate terms by lab people. If you watched the video about the testimony during the CA hearings, you heard Dr. Beals say that it's called beneficial bacteria when it's in the milk, and 'coliforms' when that milk is in a test vial.
I found a distinction here, but it still leaves room for confusion:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/programs/coliform.htm
(it talks about fecal e.coli in water but e. coli strains are also found in mammary samples, ground samples, and fecal samples. And some of these fecal strains are good guys, especially E. coli strains, which compete w/e.coli 0157:H7....google e.coli nissle 1917, or e.coli J5, for example. -Blair )
There are three different groups of coliform bacteria; each has a different level of risk.
Total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli
"Total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli are all indicators of drinking water quality. The total coliform group is a large collection of different kinds of bacteria. Fecal coliforms are types of total coliform that mostly exist in feces. E. coli is a sub-group of fecal coliform. When a water sample is sent to a lab, it is tested for total coliform. If total coliform is present, the sample will also be tested for either fecal coliform or E. coli, depending on the lab testing method."
Total coliform bacteria are commonly found in the environment (e.g., soil or vegetation) and are generally harmless. If only total coliform bacteria are detected in drinking water, the source is probably environmental. Fecal contamination is not likely. However, if environmental contamination can enter the system, there may also be a way for pathogens to enter the system. Therefore, it is important to find the source and resolve the problem."
So whenever anyone says 'coliform' ask them what they are talking about. Including the labs, where 'fecal coliform' is often referred to when testing water, but it may actually be a total coliform test, or a pathogen test.
This post is more a question than an answer - but I think most dairies do a total coliform count AND a standard plate count, and if it is high, they have to test for specific pathogens to understand if it's the good guys or the bad guys.
-Blair
Am I correct in assuming the standard plate count gives the fecal coliform count, and the somatic cell count gives the total coliform count?
Amanda, Are you saying that fecal coliforms were found in Mark's milk that had soured on the store shelves before testing?
Elizabeth
The report of the 2006 outbreak described coliform counts in some of the products. It also mentioned that a couple (a few?) of the samples tested had very high levels of fecal coliforms. One sample had 1.4M. It is not clear from the report which products were taken from the shelves and which (if any) from the dairy. The CDC report says that some were taken from the dairy itself (thus not likely spoiled, though it doesn't give counts for these separately).
On the more general point I mentioned earlier about making some "friends" in government to stay in the know, obviously "big dairy" or any big industry is going to have a much more complex strategy that likely includes things like fear and intimidation. I don't want to come off as a big industry apologist. My point really is that successful industries have political strategies. Raw milk may have a strategy but I would play it differently.
Amanda
Enough for me, thanks for your help.
I am simply citing the 2006 report: I have mentioned it here before and no one has seemed concerned at all about it. I am also expressing dismay that the results would be written off as "spoilage." I can't find the report online, so I've uploaded it here (see the top of page 6):
http://tinyurl.com/5qcerv
Creating a fecal coliform distribution was not the point of the report so it will not satisfy your need to see repeated testing for it.
I'm glad we can agree this issue is a big deal. It's not the outsourced cream, but there was outsourced product in that recall period. Whether the high counts came from outsourced product may also be impossible to know even for the dairy involved unless all of a product class was outsourced at that time. In any case, as a consumer of the product mix from that period, I certainly would expect that any outsourced product be held to the same standard of production and safety that we are promised with the whole product line.
Keep in mind too that this discussion is all in the context of Deep Throat's comments about high coliform counts and the response that the high counts were due to spoilage. There were something like fifty bottles tested in the recall and the distribution for them is not given in the report, though the report does describe the distribution somewhat. The distribution would be interesting data. Perhaps Dairy A has it and can post it. However, fifty samples still wouldn't be enough to create some sort of "Sep 2006 coliform distribution" (or fecal coliform distribution), so I don't think you'll ever get the data you are seeking.
Amanda
Maybe Mark McAfee can clarify if the colostrum came from his cows or was he still outsourcing?
cp