I always appreciate hearing the world views of people who live in different worlds than I do. I’m still in Germany and tonight I rode with a middle-aged Pakistani taxi driver who expressed dismay that German churches are “so lifeless,” while the country’s many mosques “are so light, so full of life.” He is thrilled to live in a country that offers so much economic opportunity compared with his homeland, and also allows him to indulge his love of being a Muslim and going to the mosque…even if he still must endure serious discrimination from those he regards as infidels. As I said, a different view of the world than I’m accustomed to hearing in my usual conversations.
That’s why I appreciated the conversation I had with the California food regulator last week. She works in a world with an entirely different view of things that are important to me, like food and health.
As I said in my previous post, we discussed both the California raw milk situation, and the more general health issues around raw milk. Here I present the discussion around the more general health issues.
She really woke me up when I challenged her assertion that there are no proven health benefits from consuming raw milk. “The scientific evidence on the health benefits are not accepted by the scientific community,” she said. So its attitude is, “Why can’t you just pasteurize raw milk?”
What about the studies indicating that children who consume raw milk have fewer chronic health problems, such as the recent major European study suggesting that raw milk reduces the incidence of asthma in children?
Her response: “Is it better to go to your doctor and get asthma medicine than to take the risk of drinking raw milk?”
It’s a question I wouldn’t even think to ask. I just assume it’s preferable to consume a food to solve a potential health problem than take a powerful pharmaceutical drug or, worse yet, put my child on the drug.
So we were both dismayed–first I was, as I just said, and then she, when I expressed to her my shock that she would consider a drug preferable to a food for countering chronic illness.
In her view, the basic problem is this: “Raw milk is not stable. You have these illnesses that will happen without controls.”
She did allow, though, that the scientific community doesn’t fully understand what makes people get ill from pathogens. “It is not just the germs. It is the immune system and you have this interplay…Fifty people go to a banquet and ten get sick.”
She said that public health people are beginning to suspect that, based on the recent California illnesses blamed on raw milk–the two children who became very sick in 2006, and the health care worker in 2008–that raw milk isn’t a serious problem for everyone who consumes it. “One of our suspicions is it’s the recent drinkers of raw milk who are likeliest to get sick. You develop immunity. It’s a natural vaccine. You are self-vaccinating.”
She feels that the key to improving raw milk’s safety is to keep its distribution as local as possible. “I’d rather it be distributed and regulated locally.”
If it is going to be sold in retail food stores, she feels the warnings should be more prominent–large signs in front of the raw milk dairy case. “There is enough of a risk that there could be more warning. Then public health could walk away from it.”
Hmmm, a few large signs in front of the raw milk dairy case, saying in big letters what is now said in small labels on the bottle about unpasteurized milk potentially causing illness. If that’s the price for getting the regulators to “walk away,” might it be worth considering?
It sure would be nice to be able to discuss such questions in open forums rather than via anonymous experts. As it turns out, we may live in different worlds, but the common ground isn’t necessarily that far afield.
Isn’t it great to be around people who focus on community? I hope you’re having a wonderful time. Thanks for keeping your blog going!
"If it is going to be sold in retail food stores, she feels the warnings should be more prominent–large signs in front of the raw milk dairy case. "There is enough of a risk that there could be more warning. Then public health could walk away from it."
Gee, I wish it were that simple. What would they like the sign to say? "Fresh, Unpasteurized, Unhomogenized, Unprocessed Milk from pastured cows at xxx farm", or
"Caution – This milk could kill you. The FDA says drinking raw milk is like playing Russian Roulette with your health. We do not acknowledge the science behind raw milk and we extort, harass, and/or jail anyone that makes any health claims about whole foods in their natural state. We strongly advise you to take pharmaceutical drugs instead, scientific evidence notwithstanding. If you experience nausea, stomach aches, diarrhea, or dizziness, AND the source of this milk comes from unregulated, identifiable sources, please report them to your local health department immediately. Your tax dollars are appreciated."
And this news item, from meatingplace.com:
Conference to address food-borne illness litigation
By Ann Bagel Storck on 11/14/2008
Dupont Qualicon
The American Conference Institute will host its second annual conference on food-borne illness and contamination litigation Dec. 4-5 in Phoenix.
Speakers will include in-house counsel from food companies and trade associations, epidemiologists, regulators and key litigators. National Meat Association Director Emeritus Rosemary Mucklow is also part of the program.
The conference will cover topics such as aligning damage assessments/expectations with the outcomes from recent resolved litigation; managing an outbreak effectively to minimize shareholder and reputational risk afterwards as quickly as possible; and how to measure and prove actual control of various players in the movement of contaminated food to accurately assess apportionment of liability.
For more information about the event or to register, click here.
https://webserv.c5groupinc.com/www_secure/conf_details.php?conf=5553
(Why was I surprised that this is about insurance, instead of prevention?)
-Blair
Some hospitals seem to be on the verge of getting with the idea that good bacteria can actually help combat the bad guys – maybe David’s regulator is on to something here 🙂 – http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE4A502320081106?sp=true
On the other hand, since (she) is concerned about the supposed lack of scientific documentation concerning the health benefits of raw milk, perhaps (she) would be similarly concerned about the gigantic uncontrolled experiment being conducted on the world’s food by Monsanto with genetically modified foods, which in a recent careful EU study are shown to be damaging to fertility, reported here in two separate articles (and now waiting – patiently – for the news to hit the pages of the New York Times, or better yet, the Chicago Tribune):
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15588.cfm
and summarized here again:
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/T_echnologies_40/111407472008_Study_Genetically_Modified_GM_Crops_Threaten_Human_Fertility_and_Health_Safety.shtml
Wonder how long it will take the major media to latch onto real news……
A few things she said stood out for me.
I predict next year there will be a change in the standard, she said. It will be higher than ten. I dont think the CDFA will oppose it. The CDFA would rather not regulate this one.
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."
She said that public health people are beginning to suspect that, based on the recent California illnesses blamed on raw milkthe two children who became very sick in 2006, and the health care worker in 2008that raw milk isnt a serious problem for everyone who consumes it. One of our suspicions is its the recent drinker to raw milk who are likeliest to get sick. You develop immunity. Its a natural vaccine. You are self-vaccinating.
If it is going to be sold in retail food stores, she feels the warning should be more prominentlarge signs in front of the raw milk dairy case. There is enough of a risk that there could be more warning. Then public health could walk away from it.
Here is the conclusion I come to after reading the above statements:
The possible direction of raw milk legislation may be a huge compromise. (My personal bias is life is all about compromise. So I view this as a positive not a negative). Instead of re-debating SB201, the 10 coliform count standard will be raised to a level all sides can agree to. As for safety measures, in lieu of expensive, unreliable pathogen testing, large signs will be posted above raw milk sold in grocery stores warning of the dangers of possible pathogen contamination and illnesses that can result. Hopefully, the information presented will include the fact that in outbreaks, children are most vulnerable to becoming ill.
I personally love the idea of the signs. The raw milk movement is very one sided in the information that is presented about raw milk. The possibility of pathogen contamination is downplayed and swept under the carpet when it does happen. Large signs above raw milk being sold in grocery stores balances the raw milk pros with the raw milk cons.
I hope this is the solution/compromise to Californias raw milk regulation war, along with making it a crime to outsource raw milk products, including colostrum.
cp
Do you think there would be equality with the warning signs? After all, there is always the potential for contamination.
Amanda, in regards to "no one being concerned" about the fecal/coliforms counts, We were drinking OP’s milk at that time, there was 2 jugs in the frig. We drank them and no one was ill. If there was X amount of poop in the milk, we didn’t notice. The investigation appeared to be sloppy and full of contradictions. The govt officials have stated to the media thier views and beliefs. I think there is always concern when there is contamination or the potential for contamination. So who to believe? The govt, when they have made it clear they are against raw dairy and also did a sloppy investigation? or the farmer whose livelyhood is depended on sales? Both can and do go either way. Education is the key, educate yourself and make a choice. (I say this last generally, as I know you’ve educated yourself).
As stated, the testing is not 100% proof. Sorta like the HIV testing, many false negs and pos. I think there is concern about whether something is contaminated or not. Accuracy and professionalism goes a long way.
Regaining trust from any entity that is known to lack honesty is very difficult. I was very concerned when it was brought to my attention that a product was out-sourced. If it had been posted or stated somewhere that it was out-sourced, I had missed it. I felt decieved.
"Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, eggs, or sea food may increase your risk of food-borne illness especially if you have a medical condition."
Seems like this just about covers it. Just add "milk, dairy," in front of "meats" and slap it on raw milk containers and if needed, on the raw dairy case in the store and on the menus of restaurants. Then, clearly identify raw milk whenever and wherever it appears. This form of warning is already out there, it’s familiar to consumers on food packaging as well as on restaurant menus, it covers the basics, and I would argue that it provides legal protection for producers and the chain of distribution as well.
So where is the prominent warning on manufactured, carbohydrate-based foods, and those with added high-fructose corn syrup and other sugars, that consumption may lead to insulin resistance, and eventually to type II diabetes?
And look at asthma. Asthma incidence is variously reported as 10 to 13 percent and growing! In light of the positive benefits of raw milk on that particular epidemic (see Steve Bemis’ comment above) one must wonder if our regulators’ radar is malfunctioning, or perhaps nonexistent.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/
And, childhood obesity:
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/index.htm
So many big problems to deal with in public health. At the same time, public health tracks obscure things like Ebola, Avian Influenza, and other diseases not llikely to affect your families. But, someone is watching and tracking these diseases. Same folks are also trackiing raw milk outbreaks. At least one person here said, the government report(s) are sloppy. How? What part? Whether it is diabetes, childhood obesity, foodborne illness or Ebola virus, the people working to prevent these illnnesses are striving to do their best. Do you have constructive criitique?.
A few days ago I finally came up with the guts to bring up raw milk with one of the main infectious disease doctors in the hospital I work at. Although I didn’t have the impression he would be thrilled with the legalization of raw milk, he was more open-minded than I anticipated. Someone in his family regularly argues with him about the issue, he said. He told me he has treated many cases of listeriosis, and in most of them, the infecting medium is never known or found. Same with e-coli. It is refreshing to have a conversation with someone of a scientific mind who is willing to acknowledge this fact, and not make assumptions.
The term, "raw milk outbreaks," causes me automatic suspicion of the facts. Darwin, I agree that some of these agencies do their very best, but they are infiltrated and influenced by companies and entities with other interests; and easily swayed at times to provide "facts," supporting those company causes without true scientific connections (other than histories) between disease and cause.
Example: one of the only documents of national meetings of directors of state dairy divisions I can find online for the U.S. had the collection of data from all states on how many outbreaks of foodborne illness were caused by raw milk from each state. One has to ask what the motives might be to collect such data in this fashion, and what criteria each dairy director uses to determine the outbreak was caused by raw milk. The document doesn’t say. It does, however, go on to talk about regulation of milk sales. Therefore the reader might deduce that the data was collected for the sole purpose of justifying an action (regulation); not for the accuracy of data in solving a problem of how raw milk outbreaks occur. This sort of document published online comes across as a political agenda from my point of view. It makes me feel as though the national meetings of dairy directors have no intention of representing the people in the states they govern. That is one government report that is not only sloppy, but corrupt.
Gwen
I suppose in a culture that meets every perceived slight with a cry of Something must be done! we should not be surprised that our public health officials would be content with merely doing something rather than effecting solutions.
Are our public health failures not painfully obvious? The most frequently diagnosed diseases in America are at epidemic levels, and many of those are increasing. This is happening concomitant with our very vigorous and expensive (and not incidentally, society-directing) public health efforts. The aphorism about insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, comes to mind. (You yourself mention two of the most appalling: diabetes and obesity. Are we to be happy that, as you say, someone is watching and tracking these diseases while the diseases kill us all?)
I am suggesting that an alternative view is in order. My personal plan includes a diet that liberally uses raw milk and other high quality, natural fats and proteins, and a bare minimum of processed grains and sugars. That is the opposite of most health professionals’ recommendations. I also have regular contact with what many might call filthcow and chicken manure and microbe-filled soilalso in opposition to the standard scientific recommendations. I eschew antibiotics and vaccinations, again in opposition to the authorities. I have never been healthier since leaving conventional wisdom behind. And I am not alone, as you will note reading this blog. I believe we counter culturalists (if going natural can be considered counter culture) are entitled to ask why our public health machine is more interested in placing barriers between us and our choices than they are in examination of their own failed policies.
And by the way, I am emphatically NOT saying that I have all the answers, or that I have become immune to disease or premature death. I am however saying that my way is better, and that at very least I should have the right to pursue my choices, unfettered by law and bureaucracy.
Most important, I am far more content living with my problems than with the problems associated with busy, expensive solutions, especially those foisted upon me by others.
http://www.nutritiondata.com/
The cdc site says a 50 yr old female should eat 2 cups fruit and 3 cups veggies/day, combine that with the RDA of various vitamins and your food intake is not realistic. Or is there some way to achieve the RDA of a healthy day of eating and not over eat and get all the RDA?
Rinse the Turkey? Not So Fast
By KIM SEVERSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/dining/24WASH.html
"I pretty much treat poultry as if it has a radiation cloud around it," she said.
What do our food experts say? "Be afraid of your food." Don’t wash it, because then you’ll splash salmonella all over. Buy this toxic bird, handle it with gloves or wash hands thoroughly after touching it, don’t let it touch the counter or the sink, or if it does, use bleach to kill the pathogens – also any utensils used that came in contact with it, and use a thermometer to make sure you cook the bejesus out of it, because heat kills the critters. And don’t forget to drain off all the fat.
Enjoy it.
Reminds me of pasteurized milk. When I think about how our food is produced, and all the measures taken to mitigate the dangers of food, I want to giggle and weep at the same time.
"The FDA is committed to protecting and promoting the health of the American people," said Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs. "This budget enables us to continue development of the staff and programs necessary to safeguard the food we eat and improve the safety and development of drugs, vaccines, devices, and other medical products." The FDA’s 2009 budget is $2.4 billion.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01789.html
-Blair
Also be sure to watch a short video on the difference between A1 and A2 milk its very interesting.
Wow, is there a place we can research where all the money goes? Our tax dollars at work…
It would seem that most foods in the natural state would be healthier than processed foods.
I agree that we should be able to drink or eat anything we want.
Amanda
In terms of "who to believe," it’s not black and white and it’s not as simple as "I drank the milk and didn’t get sick." We bought about fifteen gallons in that period with dates close to the dates of the sick children. It didn’t spoil quickly. It obviously didn’t have fecal coliform counts in the stratosphere. Cows are typically milked twice a day. Pathogen distribution is not equal across a milk tank. Some items get bottled after a possibly contaminated item gets bottled. Some bottles are just simply more likely to be contaminated than others. That’s why we see a range of results in the state report. It’s also part of the reason that not as many people got sick (though I do agree there’s more to that story).
When product was pulled back in that period, some of it did have counts in the stratosphere. That product should have never been bottled. Obviously there was a risk in drinking in that time. There is a risk with all foods. You can blame it on bad tests or a sloppy research design, but even if you consider those fecal coliform counts to be point estimates and you put some sort of error term around them, the counts are still in the sky. I suppose regulators could have cooked the data, but taking that route, they could have easily sprinkled some of the outbreak strain in the milk too.
FTR, After I stop lactating (which will begin any day now), we’ll likely get a mammal on this property to produce milk for the rest of the family. That’s where it’s real clear to me: if I am the producer, I don’t have to fret too much over black, white, and the many shades of gray.
Amanda
A person who owns a cow and milks by hand consumes raw milk that is different from someone who purchases raw milk from a cow share agreement. The cow share agreement begins the process of losing personal control of the product, but it still operates on a small scale, local, intimate level. Customers pick up the milk from the farm, many providing their own bottles.
However, if you live in a state where raw milk can be sold in a grocery store, all control is lost. Trust your farmer becomes a huge leap of faith. OPDC has over 400 cows. Milk from many cows is mixed together before it arrives in a bottle on the store shelf.
A family living in California can purchase raw milk that has possibly traveled hundreds of miles before it has reached the shelf.
Last year, raw milk regulation caused uproar in California. AB 1604 turned into AB 1735, which evolved into SB 201 (I think I have all of the numbers correct) and then SB 201 was vetoed. Once the new year unfolds, the madness is going to begin. The person David spoke to gives inside information about some of the possibilities that may be placed on the table.
I find her observations interesting and a bit surprising. The solution does appear to be quite simple. Raising the coliform count and adding a sign a point of sale is something to ponder. I wonder how the two dairies view this idea. Would this be acceptable to them? Would this be acceptable to CDFA? What are the negatives?
cp