One of the benefits to emerge from the trauma of the Michigan “sting” of October 2006–when Richard Hebron was stopped, his raw-milk products confiscated, and his home searched–was an activist community of raw-milk consumers.
Hundreds wrote the Michigan Department of Agriculture, legislators, and county prosecutors to describe the benefits they gained from regularly consuming raw milk. Those letters helped convinced prosecutors and the MDA to back off on their temptation to file felony charges against Richard.
But, of course, as we all know, those stories of improved health don’t really count to health and medical scientists, since the experiences are considered “anecdotal.”
It turns out the Michigan raw-milk community didn’t stop with the letter-writing campaign. Led by a prominent Michigan pathologist, Ted Beals, and with backing from the Weston A. Price Foundation, these individuals decided to survey raw-milk drinkers about their experiences with lactose intolerance. They also engaged international research firm Opinion Research Corp. to conduct a national telephone survey to learn about the national incidence of lactose intolerance.
The results have finally been tabulated, and they provide convincing evidence for the long-stated claim that raw milk can usually be consumed by individuals with lactose intolerance.
Some 2,217 Michigan consumers of “fresh unprocessed milk” (the Michigan study’s term for raw milk) were surveyed, of whom 155, or 6%, said they had been “told by a healthcare professional they had lactose intolerance.” Of those 155, some 127 have no symptoms of lactose intolerance when drinking the fresh unprocessed milk—which is 82% of those with the lactose intolerance diagnosis.
Why is this a big deal? Because lactose intolerance is a major problem in the U.S. In surveying consumers nationally as part of the study, Opinion Research Corp. found that 15% of American households have at least one member who is lactose intolerant. Base on that finding, Opinion Research concluded that about 10% of the U.S. population, or about 29 million Americans, have lactose intolerance. Among children, Opinion Research extrapolated that the rates are even higher—some 18% of households with children, while the rate is 13% in households without children.
It would seem to make sense to make raw milk easily available to people with lactose intolerance—maybe allow them to have it with a doctor’s prescription. Maybe I better shut up before Big Pharma tries to make raw milk a mutibillion dollar prescription item. In any event, congrats to Ted Beals and his cohorts, including Steve Bemis, a Michigan lawyer, who have patiently been accumulating, collating, and assessing this data over the past seven months. Hopefully, they’ll get it published in a scholarly journal of some kind.
***
While New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets continues trying out assorted tactics of authoritarian regimes to stamp out raw milk, a few states are moving in the opposite direction. Legislation loosening restrictions on raw milk is under consideration or about to be proposed in at least three states—Vermont, Maryland, and Missouri. In Vermont, legislation has been proposed to lift restrictions on the amount of raw milk dairy farmers can sell to consumers, while in Maryland, which has banned even cow shares, legislation has been introduced to allow direct farm-to-consumer sales; it is being actively promoted by the Maryland Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. And here’s a link to the Missouri legislation.
I should add, of course, that getting legislative permission to sell raw milk from the farm to consumers doesn’t ensure that regulators won’t try to throw their weight around to intimidate consumers, per the NY situation.
***
I had a reminder today of just how far back my interest in sustainable farming goes (and how long I’ve been in this reporting biz). An article I wrote about homesteading back in the pre-pre-Internet days of the early 1970s, when I was a cub reporter for The Wall Street Journal, has shown up on the Internet. I recall that there was some debate internally at the WSJ to break the then-existing ban on photos by publishing some of this farm…but the idea was turned down, and remained in effect for many more years. The article turned out to be one of the most popular articles the WSJ ever ran to that time, eliciting hundreds of (snail mail) letters.
http://www.babyreference.com/InfantDeaths.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071008171331AAQD9Ho
(I don’t know how factual these links are)
I am guessing here,I don’t know the exact stats on how many are breast fed vs bottle fed.Also the length of time for breast feeding, health of the mother and her diet intake are factors too. Perhaps it is the bottle fed who are among those lactose intolerant.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON RAW MILK
What does the science say?
Prepared by Michael Payne DVM, PhD
Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS)
University of California, Davis
My source at the meeting reported that when this man spoke, all hope of total repeal of AB 1735 was lost – the committee was visibly shaken.
Now we have the text that he spoke from, and I hope that some of the knowledgeable contributors to this forum can help to refute his claims.
My word-for-word transcription of the document is here:
http://www.tllc.com/Q_A_Raw_Milk_from_WIFSS.html
My activist friend who saw this presented thinks that we have to debunk it if we want to make progress on the legislative front.
I wish I could have reproduced WIFSS letterhead, because it featured three "illuminated" pyramids: the Government pyramid and Industry pyramid on Top, and the University pyramid below, supporting both Government pyramid and Industry pyramid. Interesting choice of symbols – it think it says: "I’m with the Power Elite, and WE say that Science says…"
Your thoughts appreciated.
I realize this is off topic, It appears this guy has some sort of supernatural powers. How does he know that all that beef from downer cows doesn’t put anyone at risk or even Low risk? And he fights against the low risk of raw milk. LMAO on that one.
https://wifss.ucdavis.edu/index.php Here’s the logo.
I didn’t see where any of that information was sited. So where is the science? If my feeble mind recalls correctly, much of that was repeated on other governmental web sites and I think different sites debunked quite a bit of that. (unfortunately most people do not research nor question issues) A good scientist always sites his/her work, to give credibility to it. It neglected to show where and how it obtained thier information, shame on them for being lousy scientists!
On the site you posted #5 Contradicts page 2 the right side of top of page (that would look nice in court)
http://ceplacer.ucdavis.edu/newsletterfiles/Food_Safety_Update10542.pdf
I would not doubt that there are other discrepancies along with alluding to illness caused by raw dairy without absolute proof. And we all know if the cows are ill and the dairy is dirty, you have a great potential of becoming sick, it ain’t rocket science.
Debunking the Inadequacies of the UC Davis information and showing both sides of the issue along with comparisons between raw and pasturization and the number of outbreaks from both over a selected time period (and siting the information) would give a visual of the facts.
I still say educating the public would be a great advantage, they would "see" the factory dairies and I’m sure many would be shocked and many would speak out and the consumption of dairy from factory farmers would drop. I bet just the thought of those downer cows in the food chain has turned more than a few off of beef.
We will win on rights…the right to make our own nutritional choices REGARDLESS of whether those choices are smart or not, regardless of whether those choices fly in the face of "established science". We will win on rights or we won’t win.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
Amanda
http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2007/10/raw_milk_california_madness_an.html
Amanda
Do these studies show which farms they were done at? For example Claravale? OP? Or any of the other raw dairies across the nation? Or were they done at the factory farms?
Claravale and OP have been serving raw milk for years; I don’t recall reading of any illnesses from those two dairies. Thus far, only speculation, nothing concrete.
Amanda
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/02/lifes_a_contaminated_beach.php#more
Should you be wondering about the relevance of this comment, it’s that officials use coliform levels as criteria tto close beaches even if the pathogen sickening the populace isn’t a coliform. Measuring coliform levels does not always mean bathing condiitions are safe.
Money quote:
But one of the things these studies show is that there are pathogens in recreational waters even when they meet standards deemed acceptable by state and federal bacterial standards. These beaches were legally open to the public. Thus the bacterial indicator standards are of doubtful protection.
Just another example of a meaningless standard that is blindly followed in the belief that it actually has some meaning.
I would think and hope, that no one disputes that an out break "can" happen. We all know there are no guarantees in life. As stated in other posts "sh*t happens, no matter how careful you are.
Absolute proof that a bacteria came from a specific place,is one thing, condeming someone with speculation is wrong. (even oj walked, and I would swear he was guilty, but I assume that those on the jury did not have thier absolute proof-I did not follow that trial closely, he had a history of abusing..) I had thought in America, our laws are not suppose to condem a person on speculation.
To my knowledge there was an E-coli outbreak in 2006, I was to understand it was from produce not from raw milk. Raw milk was suspected at one point,but no proof was obtained. Only speculation.
I would like to hear the produce evidence in the 2006 outbreak. We’ve determined on this blog before that spinach wasn’t in common since not all children had it (though they could have been contaminated by spinach-eating friends or family I suppose). The fingerprint didn’t match the Buttonwillow lettuce case or the larger spinach case at the time.
But again, I am a bit lost on exactly what we are arguing about here. There were raw milk outbreaks. Whether we think the milk was inferior in those cases is another matter. Payne responds to that potential argument by bringing up the 2006 and 2007 cases at OP. There may or may not be enough evidence in the 2006 case. There were no sick people in 2007. My whole point is that this is not the angle of the argument I would take in trying to protect access to raw milk. I would simply make it a food choice issue.
Amanda
I havent even looked back at the literature though I have seen the literature that previous posters have cited. It would be shocking to me if the group agrees on a new level.
Do we know if OP and Claravale passed their February tests?
Amanda
I don’t recall any definitive results between those children and the produce nor the OP dairy.
I do agree, what one wishes to consume, should be their choice and also should be accessable to them.
I think other states have a higher count than 10 and are doing ok, . What was the count last year between the 2 dairies? Since no one was sickened, I can only assume that it ok.
I did a brief net search in regards to the coliform counts and it appears that, depending on where the information is coming from, any number from 100 to less than 10 should be ok.
I am courious as to what the difference is between Claravales and OP bulk tamks and factory dairy’s.
I don’t know if the 2 dairies passed the Feb testing.
As it is at the time I left the business that had that milk so dead it would last two weeks on the dairy shelf.
As it is at the time I left the business that had that milk so dead it would last two weeks on the dairy shelf.