Is There a Political Agenda Driving the Suits Against Organic Pastures? Might It Backfire This Time?
Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 10:04PM I find myself wondering…
The suits against Organic Pastures Dairy Co. aren’t asking for huge damages. They seem to be based on weak and contradictory evidence. They come at a time when Organic Pastures is at the center of a political dispute to reverse highly restrictive standards on raw milk.
And I wonder, is another script being played out here?
It’s tempting to get caught up in and continually replay the minutae, as I’ve done in the past and as Amanda Rose does following my previous post—was it five children who had E.coli 0157:H7 or six children? Did six children drink raw milk or only five? Did one of the children consume colostrum and, if so, was it a boy or a girl? Was the E.coli 0157:H7 found in Organic Pastures’ cows in heffers or milkers?
At one point Amanda says, “The bacteria wasn't isolated in the Martin case but if there is anything this case should be teaching us it is that it is difficult to identify the pathogen…this is not all that easy.” Absolutely correct, and that's why so many people have a problem with this case. It's very difficult to isolate the cause of most food-borne illness and explains why very few of the 76 million annual cases of food-borne illness the Centers for Disease Control estimates are ever proven or resolved.
Yet Amanda concludes: “The story the report tells me is that there was a raw milk outbreak.” If judges and juries think this way--it's lousy evidence, but, what the hell, we all know how these kids got sick without conclusive evidence--they will hang Organic Pastures.
The fact that getting the proof is difficult doesn’t mean we should accept inconclusive evidence. Amanda concludes, “I just happen to know that raw milk may have a pathogen in it and yet I still drink it.” That “I still drink it” may no longer be a choice when these cases are finished.
If this was a clear-cut situation, as the case with pasteurized milk in Massachusetts seems to be, with the offending listeria monocytogenes found in the victims also being found at the dairy, then I could well understand the victims seeking some legal resolution.
But that’s not the case here. It’s in that fuzzy area, like so many food-borne illnesses in this country, based on the fact that scientists don’t fully understand the dynamics of what happens and how to capture all the evidence.
So I find myself wondering about the underlying political agenda associated with this case. Or, to put it another way, how could the California legislature possibly un-do AB1735 so long as this case is pending, so long as a potential political opponent down the road could say, “And Assemblyman Smith voted to repeal raw-milk safety legislation that was enacted to protect our kids, and he did so after the parents of children made nearly killed by raw milk filed a suit against the producer.”
You know California’s health and agriculture regulators have to be thrilled about this suit. Now that the case is public record, they can repeat its charges ad nauseum. Did they encourage it? You have to wonder.
But in all this negativity, I really wonder if things will play out exactly the way the anti-raw-milk crowd anticipates. From one of Sylvia’s great links—this one to The Wall Street Journal article about the Marler law firm—it seems clear the firm much prefers to settle suits and extract some cash than go to court. Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures may not be as cooperative as the corporate types he usually goes after, which don't mind paying a few million dollars to make a troublesome court case go away. If this case went to trial, well, it could be interesting.
The number of raw milk consumers is increasing rapidly, as people are becoming more educated about food and nutrition. The dire warnings issued by the FDA and CDC and state agriculture agencies increasingly fall on deaf ears, and even have the opposite of the intended effect.
Maybe a trial of this case would similarly have the opposite effect. By revealing how little the medical and public health communities know about food-borne illness, a trial could serve as a platform to educate more people about the tiny but inevitable risks of all foods (Marler seems to have gone after many of them), versus the nutritional benefits of raw milk and other fresh natural foods. Maybe it’s time to turn the tables on the public health and medical establishments.
Reader Comments (15)
http://www.westonaprice.org/children/rawmilk.html
At the bottom is a table of outbreaks. I looked at the table and my brain told me that surely there was an outbreak in that time period. After all, I’ve already said that I am not of the school that raw milk is pathogen-free (but for the record, I do drink it, which is why my friend was calling me).
So I head to the CDC outbreak data. There’s a list of years here:
http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/outbreak_data.htm
I click on 1995 randomly. I scroll down and see “raw milk” in one of the rows. I look to the left and see “California.” I glanced through the rest of the document and didn’t notice any other milk, but perhaps it’s there.
Then I look at the table on the WAPF site and don’t see this outbreak reported.
I considered looking through all the years but don’t really care to flip those PDFs, enlarge them, etc. I thought “Wasn’t the 1980s the period of Alta Dena salmonella dublin outbreaks? Why aren’t they on the table?”
Since those years are not in the CDC link above, I went to PubMed and used the search terms “salmonella dublin California.”
http://www.pubmed.com
Fifteen documents came up, some looked relevant, some not as relevant. Here’s one:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=3140275
But I know, even though academics have gotten tenure on data from Alta Dena, there was never an outbreak.
Even Ron Schmid suggests in his book that there may have been pathogens in the Alta Dena milk (maybe not to the degree as the state reports). This is not a product that can be bullet-proofed.
So back to my friend. Do I direct her to WAPF? Actually it's more complicated because that's where she gets her info in the first place. She needs to know that she's taking some risk and yet she looks at that WAPF website and thinks there is no risk. Whether she chooses to accept it is her own decision, but pregnant moms and children deserve better information than what's coming out of WAPF. And if this makes me a Neanderthal, so be it, I've been called that before.
I would have much less of a problem with this whole business had I not received phone calls all weekend asking me why this information wasn't available before now. Again, this is the local crowd concerned about their own decisions rather than the issues of the bigger movement. But it is my strong opinion that this movement can only survive with transparency. A big reason the state was after Alta Dena is because the dairy owner made pretty large health claims . I haven't confirmed but maybe old timers remember that apparently the owner also insisted that there were no pathogens in the milk. Who does this kind of talk serve?
What are we going to do as a movement when a baby drinking WAPF cow formula because she thinks her own milk is deficient in vitamin D, comes into contact with a pathogen in that milk when she should have been consuming milk from her own mother?
Moms need to make their own decisions but they need proper information to do it. This movement has a data communication problem.
On the morning of the 2006 recall, I called the dairy and actually talked to Mark by chance. I said "Being human has a risk." We actually consumed ten gallons of milk that we should have thrown away.
We take risks in everything we do and as I drove back from the Bay Area Friday a day early and had a sore ear because I didn't have an ear piece for my cell phone, I thought "Dammit, I'm getting an In-N-Out burger because this has been a bad day." (forget the diet.) I gassed up in Kettlemen City, looked across at In-N-Out and thought, "Dammit, I bet those burgers are made with ground beef." So I drank raw milk instead. This is called consumer information at work. I am not really concerned that 0157:H7 is going to kill me, but I don't fancy the idea of getting sick over a fast food burger.
Yes, the guys at the state are elated by the lawsuit.
By the way, there is no conclusive evidence in real-world data.
I've got a deadline I'm working on, so that's really it for me for now. I expect to do some related stories in the future, but not about this recall, so you guys don't need to worry about me wallowing in 2006 minutae.
Amanda
If anyone needs breastfeeding support, it is sometimes very difficult to find just the right consultant to help you. Keep looking and keep asking for the best in your area. If you are in my area, contact me and I will put you in touch with someone. The La Leche League is of course a very good place to start.
Amanda
We are not the first family that Bill Marler has represented involving Ecoli 0157:H7 and raw milk. There was the Dee Creek incident in Dec. 2005 and the Grace Harbor Farms incident in Sept 2006.
Based on my personal experience with Ecoli 0157:H7 and raw milk, I urge all moms to look into alternative means for providing probiotics to your child’s diet. The Body Ecology Diet has a recipe for young coconut kefir. If you’re interested, go to www.bodyecology.com. There is also a book called the Probiotics Revolution: The Definitive Guide to Safe, Natural Health Solutions Using Probiotic and Prebiotic Foods and Supplements.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/02/articles/legal-cases/families-sue-raw-milk-producer-organic-pastures-over-e-coli-outbreak/
Click on "complaint" next to each plaintiff's name in paragraph 2.
"Here is a bit of video on Mark, "the raw milk ninja." "
"Although the strain differed from the outbreak strain": "genetically indistinguishable" "CDHS concluded the likely source was the defendandt's dairy"
The above is from Marlar's blog. Again where's the proof that it was caused by the raw milk?
All this is mere supposition. And suing the stores that the milk was bought from? Wow, I would doubt that the stores sold any contaminated foods on purpose.
Mark is a raw milk "ninja"? Gee what a professional name to tag on someone.
Amanda, I am not sure if I am understanding all of your post, so bear with me, please. Are you saying that your friend may think her breast milk is deficient in vitamin D? If so, what would make her think so? (It has been many years since my kids were babies and I have been out of that loop, so I am not up on the latest issues). As you and others stated, there are risks in everything. We cannot consume sterile foods and expect to obtain any neutrients. It never entered my mind that a mother's milk would be contaminated unless she was exposed to contaminents, either environmently or internally. Knowledge is power and I do believe in obtaining information so that one can make an informed decision. I also believe that mothers milk is the best for baby.
I am mixing up friends. I have one who was pregnant with toddlers and breastfeeding. She is consuming raw milk and giving it to her children for health benefits. She just had a healthy baby.
The vitamin D reference is to the more general problem I see on news groups about women either supplementing with cow's milk or switching to a raw milk formula because they think their milk is deficient. If you wonder where they would get such an idea, it's from WAPF. Most of us are probably deficient in vit D and the solution is really a lot more sensible than using cow's milk: get more sunlight and consume cod liver oil. Give your baby cod liver oil. Problem solved. Keep breastfeeding.
This is all more complicated really because the bigger issue is problems with getting breastfeeding established and using the raw milk formula in that instance. Some of the WAPF literature suggests that raw milk formula is just as good as the real thing, so some moms may go that direction rather than getting more help with their issues. Of course, some moms don't have the supply and need to supplement and those moms too deserve correct information about raw milk outbreaks. We all do.
My concern about infant feeding is a concern among many moms in the movement. I am definitely not the first.
Steve -- I've seen the PowerPoint and it is interesting. I just think it's a bit crazy that apparently every possible outbreak in California was discounted as not linked to raw milk. We could pick apart all of the outbreaks and say they were not related to hot dogs or whatever else was identified. The Dole packaged spinach case was exceptional with the smoking gun.
I realize that "outbreak interpretation" is controversial in itself, but to discount every single one of them seems absolutely ridiculous.
Newsflash: Raw milk can have pathogens.
Good talking to all you guys. Have a good evening. I'm off to the World Ag Expo tomorrow to learn about new E. coli technologies in big ag.
Amanda
Amanda
Thanks!
I did google for raw milk contamination last night, I noticed that many were inconclusive as to the pathogens matching the illness. Most were supposition. Others were found to have poor sanitation thus leading to contamination. Those of pasturized dairy, were mostly contaminated from poor sanitation and/or not properly pasturizing the dairy.
Factory farming only breeds contamination and feeding unatural foods to animals causes illnesses, a vicious circle. We are what we eat.
I'm not a legal person, and I could be wrong; the DOES 1-20 in the complaint are in referance to as of yet un-named people: John & Jane Doe(s). Look at section 1.4 on page 2 of the complaint, it is where it says they do not know everyones name to name in the suit. I guess that leaves it open for add-ons that are employees of the two companies being sued.
As far as raw milk having pathogens, yes, it can. So can your hands, the lid of a can of soda, pasteurized milk, and a gazillion other sourced items that end up at your mouth. I reckon I am just a bit testy now, but to be honest, I am so tired of people being so afraid of things. Across the board this obsession with security, safety, and blaming others has reached a riduculous level IMO. Trying to pin blame on hot dogs or milk or whatever is so grating. If someone is adamant about SAFE, geeze, just boil everything and never eat out.
Yes, there are negligent situations. But in reality, most food borne illness is not from negligence, and most that can be traced is in an industrial situation. If I want a weiner or some mexican cheese, I accept the risk. I make the choice. If people are aware enough to acceptthat they are making choices, but are happy to characterise themselves as victims and sit on the pity pot about it, even to the point of suing, I am sad for their life and their priorities. I am even more sad for those they choose as the object of their demands for recompense.
We make dangerous choices every day. That is part of life. How we choose to protect ourselves from danger should be our individual choice, not a group demand. One of my favorite quotes:
"It must be obvious that liberty necessarily means freedom to choose foolishly as well as wisely; freedom to choose evil as well as good; freedom to enjoy the rewards of good judgment, and freedom to suffer the penalties of bad judgment. If this is not true, the word "freedom" has no meaning" – Ben Moreell
I hope and pray that the ability to obtain raw milk as a matter of choice will not be compromised by a few people at the expense of everyone.