Is Regulator Alerting Us to Real Raw Milk Issues, or Excuses? Either Way, the Facts May Point Us in a Positive Direction
Monday, December 29, 2008 at 11:32AM 
I want to thank Regulator...first, for risking him/herself on this blog, where regulator types haven’t always been well received and, second, for providing an articulate explanation of the challenges likely to confront farmers and other distributors of raw milk as it becomes more widely consumed. (Regulator's comment follows my previous post.)
What I find most interesting is that the regulation argument seems to have shifted. For a long time, the focus of regulators has been to issue public service “warnings” demonizing raw milk as completely unsafe. But Regulator’s comment appears to signify a new level of acceptance, as if to say: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Thus, there’s a hint of conciliation, an acknowledgment that the regulators can’t stamp out raw milk consumption. Then it becomes a matter of discussing how to make it all happen, which is a much different discussion than much of what has gone on.
Not surprisingly, the shift is followed by the “but” argument, as in, “Lots of people may want to consume raw milk, but you’ll never get past the legal and insurance arguments.”
Regulator seems to be saying that the insurance companies haven't caught on to the potential risk they are facing via the growing number of farms producing/selling raw milk. And the legal system isn't equipped to handle raw milk's "special" status.
A number of readers object to Regulator’s assessment based on legalities and rights. A cowshare, they argue, shouldn’t be subject to the same legal constraints as other types of conventional distribution. In that context, it’s difficult to ignore the reality that cowshares have become popular in significant measure because most states interfere in one way or another with conventional distibution of raw milk.
But aside from rights and legal obstacles, I wonder if there isn’t another simpler, experience-based factor, at work: Maybe, just maybe, the insurance companies haven't presented an obstacle because raw milk contamination/illness isn't a big problem.
We know that, statistically, raw milk is a tiny blip in the food-borne illness world. We also know that people who are sickened by raw milk, just as with other food-borne illness, generally experience mild stomach upset, and recover pretty quickly. For that reason, and also because they go into raw milk consumption understanding the slight risks, raw milk consumers aren't inclined to sue in any event. There just aren't many Chris Martin and Lauren Herzog type situations (the children who became very ill, allegedly from raw milk consumption, during September 2006).
One other thing: the insurance situation isn’t as foreign to raw milk as Regulator would have us believe. It’s generally provided as product liability insurance.
I'm sure Mark McAfee’s insurance company knew what he was up to before issuing Organic Pastures Dairy Co. the insurance that provides coverage in these situations. That insurance company is handling OPDC’s defense of the legal suits by the families of Chris Martin and Lauren Herzog (currently in the deposition phase).
I haven’t investigated insurance issues as affects raw milk in general, but if it’s like other areas of business, it’s tougher for the small provider than for the large one. That’s because product liability insurance is proportionately a bigger part of the expense ledger for a small business than a larger one. So smaller ones, especially in the startup stage, are often tempted to do without. Dee Creek wound up obtaining some coverage from business-related insurance to help in a $70,000 payout after two families filed suit in connection with illnesses in 2005 from its raw milk, but didn't have an easy time.
Yes, there are issues around whether there’s less risk of illness from small producers of raw milk than from large ones, as An Observer suggests. The further goods need to travel, the less fresh the product is and the more subject it is to the vagaries of refrigeration. And there is the matter of how to communicate warnings about raw milk, as Steve Bemis has pointed out.
But really, these are solvable "details," as it were. Not minor, but solvable. The big nut to crack is getting regulators to shift their approach--from the notion that raw milk represents a mortal public health danger to one that raw milk is a nutritious food that growing numbers of consumers highly value for its health benefits...and given that, how do we help them acquire it, rather than throw roadblocks in their path?
***
To those individuals who were having difficulties posting comments because of a security certificate problem, I have been in communication with the hosting company--and not getting practical solutions as yet. But if you're still having difficulties, would appreciate any details you can provide on the exact nature of the problem. You can email me at david@davidgumpert.com.
Reader Comments (52)
By the way, I have had food poisoning twice in the last two years since starting to drink raw milk. However, the culprits were the noro virus from hotel water (I lost 15 lbs of fluids in one night) and some bad fish in a restaurant (wicked bad headache, nausea and vomiting). But I didn't sue anybody. We have a litigious society, but some of us resist participating in that as best we can. As, for raw dairy, it has been a dream food for me and there is no turning back. That is why this dialog needs to continue.
Regulator, we need your help! In the state of Michigan, regulators, farmers and consumers have sat down and hammered things out. Perhaps that can be a model for you to help us where ever you work, whether it be on the state or federal level. There is a link to their website on my blog:
http://hartkeonline.blogspot.com/2008/10/kudos-to-michigan-department-of.html
Agribusiness, move over, the little farms and engaged consumers want a room at the decision making table!
In the year 2008, there were 11 cases of adults/teens/children? becoming ill with E.coli 0157:H7 after consuming raw milk or raw milk products. From the reports, it appears that the many victims suffered more than a mild stomach upset and one family is suing.
1. State of Missouri—In April 2008, after consuming raw goats milk, a one year old child becomes will with E.coli 0157:H7 and develops HUS. He spends one month in the hospital. The raw goat’s milk was purchased from a retail store. In Missouri, it is not legal to sell raw milk in retail stores. This family is suing the retail store.
2. State of Connecticut--In July 2008, 7 individuals became ill after consuming raw milk purchased from a retail store. From the final report, at least 2 were children, several were hospitalized, and one was on dialysis. It is unclear if more than one child developed HUS, but one did develop TTP. Three of the patients shared a matching fingerprint of E.coli 0157:H7, which also matched the sample found in cow manure at the farm.
3. State of Vermont--In September/October 2008, 3 people became ill after consuming raw milk ice cream (on the farm) and raw milk from the same producer. Two of the three people were related. We don’t know if the 3 people involved were children, if they were hospitalized or if anyone developed HUS. A final report for the State of Vermont has not been released.
cp
I would be more likely to believe that regulators were genuinely interested in the safety of milk if they would make an attempt to deal with the epidemic of crohn's disease in children that is caused by drinking milk from cows with Johne's disease.
http://www.blackherbals.com/got_milk.htm
USDA Farce?
"With the growing Johne's epidemic, US governmental regulatory agencies have been in a bind. The only thing allegedly standing between people and the paratuberculosis bacterium are 15 seconds at 72o Celsius.[215] The government has had to somehow convince the families of Crohn's patients who started to ask questions that pasteurization was foolproof. The problem was that the preponderance of the scientific evidence was against them--almost every study ever done simulating pasteurization conditions showed that paraTB survived the 15 seconds at 72o C.[216] So USDA scientists designed their own experiment."
"Critics accuse the USDA of trying to ensure that no paraTB would survive in their pasteurization experiment by first crippling the bacteria. Very irregularly, with no precedent in the scientific literature for using this type of approach,[217] the USDA began their experiment by first "starving" the MAP bacteria,[218] exposing them to high-frequency sound waves, and freezing them--a technique that has been shown conclusively to weaken MAP.[219] They were also criticized for making a number of methodological mistakes and omissions.[220],[221] Then, allegedly to make absolutely sure not a single bug would grow, they used an inadequate culture media[222] and report culturing them for only 2 to 3 months.[223] It is widely accepted that the minimum time it takes to ensure the growth of paraTB is 4 months.[224]"
"It is perhaps not surprising that no MAP grew from the pasteurized milk in their experiment. The researchers concluded: "Results indicate that the transmission of live paraTB bacteria via pasteurized milk is unlikely." Despite fifteen[225] years of better research to the contrary,[226] based on that single questionable study, in a letter dated Feb. 9, 1998, Joseph Smucker, the leader of the FDA's Milk Safety Team wrote "After a review of the available literature on this subject, it is the position of FDA that the latest research shows conclusively that commercial pasteurization does indeed eliminate this hazard."[227] "
Off the Shelf
"Despite its shortcomings, the USDA study continues to be cited and the rest of the scientific literature ignored by the government and the agricultural press.[232] Hoard's Dairyman, for example, cited the USDA study and concluded that "pasteurization destroys this dangerous disease."[233] It wasn't until the year after the study was published that such assertions were proven to be wrong."
"The only way to demonstrate for sure that live paraTB bacteria survive pasteurization is to culture a colony of living paratuberculosis bacteria from retail pasteurized milk off the grocery shelf. In 1998, that is just what researchers did. Choosing Ireland, which has the highest per capita milk consumption in the European Union,[234] investigators went to 16 retail outlets and got 31 cartons of milk which were pasteurized at commercial dairies large and small.[235] Six grew out live paraTB, 19%--almost 1 in 5.[236] This caused a national food scare with daily front page headlines, not a word of which crossed the Atlantic."
" When the results of the Irish study were released, crisis management specialists called the ramifications "enormous," "horrific." Dairy industry experts described it as a "significant blow to the industry," "accelerating the long-term decline of milk," and noting "It's not a market that can just bounce back."[237] Dairy industry leaders reacted angrily to the suggestion that pasteurization was inadequate. The British National Dairy Council's "Information Officer," said she wished the investigators had contacted the industry before publishing their scientific findings.[238]"
Johnes and BLV...I'm getting challenges about both, and answers from no one. I spent an hour today talking to a scientist/CEO about rapid DNA Johnes tests. I can't get anyone to talk authoritatively about BLV yet. And while I'm at it, Brucellosis....especially for goats.
I keep asking if there are any studies comparing grassfed to CAFO - nope. WHY?
There is no real science - this is food the USDA pushes like drugs, but they can't provide guidelines how to safely produce it....except to say it's only safe if it's pasteurized, yet that does not kill Johnes... and Mad Cow Disease? Ohmigod, tremendous disconnect there....Mark Purdey, please come back.
RE the liability issue - an agent called me a few weeks ago offering his services for liability insurance for raw dairies to RMAC. He sounds really cool. We have much to talk about - he kinda likes the idea of testing every batch, but I told him about small herds and careful producers and he's willing to talk about it.
David et al, your blog is teaching me so much, and helping me be more helpful to the farmers I wish to serve..
Never mind your cool progressive and tactful head....I might even begin to read Regulator's posts with balance....biting my tongue doesn't seem as hard now.
Regulator, thank you and please forgive.
You all are leading edge - thank you! very much for this dialogue.
-Blair
Please explain. What is RMAC?
As a consumer I'm forced to wonder, why are we drinking milk from sick animals in the first place?
I have known several individuals who suffered (past tense) from Crohn's disease. They all put it in remission with the help of raw milk! Irony of ironies. For some it was part of a diet change, for others drinking raw milk was the only change made. I've known others with Crohn's who trusted doctors and drugs; they are still sick.
Of course, the medical profession will tell you diet can't help Crohn's disease. They'd rather just pump you full of chemicals and slowly cut away your colon until you die.
Now you know why I drink raw milk and think very poorly of doctors.
Article linking Johne's and Crohn's
my questions are to cp and regulator, to cp who professes herself to be the voice of the childrem, a handfull of whom have suffered from ecoli-h7 over the past 5 years or so. did you read these reports cp? let me quote a few paragraphs that really horrify me.
from : http://academy.asm.org/images/stories/documents/mycobacteriumaviumparatuberculosis.pdf
CD was named after Burrill B. Crohn, an American physician who published a
paper in 1932 clearly distinguishing CD from intestinal TB (1). CD is a syndrome
characterized by chronic and debilitating inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract
that can be accompanied by mild to excruciating pain, frequent bouts of diarrhea,
and malnutrition due to rapid passage of food through the inflamed intestinal
tract. Some patients must be fed intravenously during the most difficult of their
episodes. These devastating and episodic symptoms can force patients to
maintain a limited work schedule or to refrain from working altogether, and the
psychological effects of the disease are profound. The uncertainty of their condition
and the ever-present possibility of symptomatic flare-ups often drive patients
into anxiety, depression, and isolation. As of 2001, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention estimated that over 500,000 people in the U.S. are living with CD
(2), and more recent statistics show that 800,000 people in North America and 1 in
1000 persons in westernized countries have diagnosed CD. In the U.S., roughly
50% of CD patients are children. There is currently no cure for CD.
With the right anti-inflammatory drug or immunomodulatory biologic regimen,
CD patients can experience temporary remission of symptoms, but long-term
flare-ups inevitably follow, coming on suddenly or developing gradually over time.
Surgery to remove inflamed sections of the bowel is the only option to alleviate
the symptoms of many people living with CD. Many other patients endure endless
regimens of drugs to alleviate some of their symptoms, but these drugs, too, have
side effects, some that can even be life threatening.
MYCOBACTERIUM.
50% are children! how is this acceptable? reading these reports convinces me of the pure evilness of human beings chasing a profit. cp, note that corhn's has no cure.... note that "treatment" consists of slicing and dicing the digestional tract a bit at a time until there is no digestive system left and the patient dies... likely however those children are no longer kids when they die since the medical system keeps them alive (if you can call that living... i don't know... but they (hospitals) must make a killing on insurance payments for their efforts.
to regulator, how can you not be focused on this epidemic? how can you not be running SCREAMING to your bosses to do something about this? would your solution be to boil the milk hotter/longer and remove any trace of nutrition from it so that big dairy can continue business as usual? if so do you think that is acceptable to americans (as individuals).
cp, do you feel like maybe you missed the boat on this? do you think it's more important that you represent a tiny few who will likely recover even from HUS (which as i understand it is really triggered by doctors blindly prescribing antibiotics without first checking on the possibility that the patient has ecoli-h7, which releases toxins on being killed off enmass)
how anyone can learn the truths of our corporate systems and still support them, let alone consume the products they offer is beyond me. even denial has to come around to acceptance eventually. i guess only a few of us are able to make that transition using our our ability to comprehend while the masses let themselves be blinded and refuse to actually look and see what is going on behind the curtain.
i'd like to see you stick around cp so we can eventually know how you travel the road of learning and understanding that you're currently looking down but seem adament not to really travel with open eyes.
good luck to everyone trying to get a handle on what all this means for their longterm health and well being... by god, we all need all the luck we can find entering a grocery store anymore.
Thank you...thank you...thank you... for starting to write about regulators and inviting the conversation to build a new bridge of understanding.
We need these people and we need them to see raw milk as a freedom issue. They have no business regulating our freedom. They do have a lot of business working with us so that we can freely enjoy our choices. This takes open minds that are not bound by greed ladened promises to control markets and our foods.
Insurance can be purchased through your broker with "Burlington" as the carrier. Burlington has covered OPDC for many years and renewed the OPDC policy with out increase in premimu after the two Marler lawsuits. That may give you some indication of how weak they feel the Marler cases are. The Burlington lawyers are extremely good and really have researched raw milk issues. They are experts...
If the government would be less involved politically and let liability and standards and inspection testing move the markets....guess what ??? everything would work. It is the biased, corrupt researchers and government political agenda that really suck. That is what sunk SB 201 in CA this year and that is what protects big dairy. We had the science...but corrupt politics cut us off at the governors desk after the people ( thru their legislative reps ) had voted 97% yes for raw milk standards that protect the consumers, markets, producers and safety.
Lets make friends with as many regulators as possible. Their kids will really do well on raw milk.
Do not forget to tune in on January 3rd for the Al Rocka Food Network special on Raw Milk staring many of our friends at Weston A Price and other Moooshine Runners.
God bless them all,
Mark McAfee
Since Blair has previously indicated she is from Colorado, RMAC probably stands for Raw Milk Association of Colorado. www.rawmilkcolorado.org/
Of course "the Industry" does not include smaller farms.As our representative in the state legislature put it:"If we are going to have farms in this county in the future,they will be these factory farms,so we should support them as an alternative to Industrial developement."
Small independent farms which find their own market are seen as a threat to the "real" farms.
The following Great Thoughts are offered here as "targets" for further discussion (sorry about the detail and length of all this; it's coming from a lawyer). They are an attempt to synthesize some of the major issues and discussion currents which have been flowing:
1) The FDA Petition should be broadened to exempt sales OR OTHER DISTRIBUTION of raw milk and raw milk products, which sale or other distribution is legal in both the originating state and in the consuming state.
[Mark's petition is modeled on Ron Paul's original Resolution, which is still buried in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and which should be broadened to free up interstate traffic founded in other legal arrangements (such as cow shares, which with all due respect Mark, are not "black market"). If, as I suspect, FDA at some level really would like to get out of regulating this tiny raw milk market, they would not really get out of the business if they implemented the Petition as it is presently drafted since the Petition bakes in a high level of both state and federal regulation; hopefully, FDA would at least approve the Petition for further comment, where these additional points can be raised.]
2) There should be some kind of consistent identification of raw milk and raw milk products coupled with standard warning language, whether basic such as current restaurant-style warnings, or more elaborate such as current California warnings.
3) Claims for health benefits may be made by any customer in the producer's advertising or sales forum only if in the form of personal testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers; or by the producer in the producer's advertising or sales forum only if in the form of a statistically accurate summary of unsolicited customer testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers.
3) Sales at retail (where the consumer by definition is remote from the producer) should be regulated under state law.
4) Transactions (whether sales, cow shares or otherwise depending on state law) direct from farmer to consumer whether on the farm or otherwise, or from farmers with herds smaller than a yearly-average [100] milking cows, should not be regulated other than by individual agreement.
[Model here for application to the feds, which should be ample precedent for a similar exemption of raw milk, is the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (Pub. L. 91-597, 84 Stat.1620 et seq.) which exempts eggs direct farm-to-consumer or any sales from flocks of less than 3000 birds. At the state level, some states permit sales to various degrees and at the other extreme, some few prohibit all kinds of raw milk transactions; these issues will have to be dealt with at the state level.]
5) Parents are free to feed their children whatever foods they choose.
6) Farmers and individuals who provide raw milk or raw milk products to "others" should have legal protection in litigation (absent reckless behavior or actual knowledge of pathogens or other significant risk factors) so long as the proper identification and warnings (as in, #2) were provided and, in the case of "others" who are minors, so long as the identification and warnings were effectively communicated to the minor's parent or guardian prior to consumption.
7) Educational materials (directed to both producers and consumers) for the safe production, handling and processing of raw milk and raw milk products should be developed and widely distributed generally and in the producer's advertising and sales media.
8) An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.
9) Independent research (including analyses of testimonials and other real-life evidence as well as traditional reductionist studies) should be publicly funded to examine the nutritional value, environmental impacts of production, and the acute and chronic impacts on human health from raw and traditional foods and from industrially-produced foods.
10) Broader insurance availability for producers and other risk-sharing approaches should be developed as a counterweight to regulation-by-litigation.
[Farmers might consider voluntary production standards such as various kinds of testing protocols or simply rely on many years of problem-free operation, so as to induce insurers to write policies, otherwise the insurers will want to "go automatic" and insist on compliance with various regulations which is their current typical mode. Similarly, a litigation defense which is founded in compliance with the testing protocols of a voluntary standard or in decades of trouble-free operation by simply "looking at the animals and watching what's in the filter," should help to defend against litigation, and ultimately, to reduce litigation's attractiveness simply because problems are so rare. It is a truism, that what insurance companies want most, is to write insurance where it is not really needed, since that's the most profitable way to write insurance. As David points out, since we don't really know how many people drink raw milk, we really don't have any idea of the denominator and thus cannot calculate the real incidence of raw milk disease outbreaks.]
Remember Kimeli, the African Maasai that attended medical school at Stanford and was diagnosed with Crohns in 2003 ( after being on the SAD USA diet for seven years ). His Stanford doctors suggested surgery to remove 12 feet of this intestines. After one year on OPDC raw milk at four to five half gallons per week ( he had a hard time tolerating other foods and many made him sicker )....no more Crohns and or symptoms of Crohns by 2005-2006. Kimeli shocked his PhD's so much that they had me come speak to the medical school at Stanford for three hours about intestinal biodoversity and how raw milk can rebuild immunity and heal person suffering from IBS, Crohns and Celiac. Weston A Price visited and studied the Maasai in the 1930's. Kimelis story is a flash back to teachngs that will save us in the future. The medical students looked dazed and confused. The PhD's agreed buy did not have a clue of what to do with the information.
The biology of it all is irrefutable!!
Remember Jordan Rubin ( of "Makers Diet" Fame ) he nealry died of Crohns in the 1990s and now he is Crohns symptom free. He drank nothing but Raw Milk Kefir and raw milk and after two years....what do you know...no more Crohns.
Reuters ( EU Science not FDA science ) annouced two months ago that Crohns was actually a condition brought on by a deficiency of certain bacteria in the gut. Fancy that....bacteria deficiency.
Are we all that stupid?....biodiversity and raw milk. A simple answer to greed, drug pushing and criminal pain giving by modern doctors and the FDA.
There is a healing cure for Crohns....Kefir and raw milk. Eat your bacteria and the whole food that feeds them. Drugs make it far worse.
I feel like screaming. In fact I have...it does not work. No one will listen, they are too drugged -up, brain washed and unconsciuos to get it. Even if it saves their lives.
Mark Mcafee
The power of the SYSTEMS propaganda machine is staggering, it produces complete mental blindness and gross missplaced fear!
The etiology (or etiologies) of Chron's disease is controversial. I'm not saying that M. paratuberculosis couldn't be a factor, or that there shouldn't be concern about the safety of milk if contaminated with this bacteria...but the science is unclear. Even Campylobacter is being eyed as a supsect. For example, these papers came out this month.
Detection and isolation of non-jejuni Campylobacter species from children with Crohn's disease
http://tiny.cc/F2p5C
Absence of mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in Crohn's patients
http://tiny.cc/BWXVi
A question about this observation described above:
"Remember Jordan Rubin ( of "Makers Diet" Fame ) he nealry died of Crohns in the 1990s and now he is Crohns symptom free. He drank nothing but Raw Milk Kefir and raw milk and after two years....what do you know...no more Crohns."
Determining causation is pretty tough. I'm skeptical about the jump from Chron's to raw milk kefir to no Chron's. What other foods did he eat during that time? Maybe he increased his vegetable intake along with just drinking raw milk kefir? Maybe it was the spinach, and not the raw milk?
The Pub Med articles and research referenced above confirms our case in point perfectly for raw milk consumption.
It said...Campylobacter only infected the immunocompromised.
It is good to not be immunocompromised. It is good to drink raw milk... which is arguably...the strongest and most effect immune food on earth. Other University research confirms that raw milk drinkers naturally have positive Campylbacter titers and antibodies that are protective of infection with Campylobacter ( ie...travelers diarrhea common name in the old days). It was not even listed as a pathogen until 1972 when antibiotics and our immune systems got out of whack and we became more distant from the farm.
Is a pathogen a pathogen if it does not make you sick?
Pathogens are pathogens only if you are immune compromised and weak.
Weak or strong that is the question.... that is the choice.
Mark