Why Pain Is to Be Avoided At All Costs; A Lobbyist Speaks Out on AB1735 Suit
Monday, March 17, 2008 at 12:17PM 
What does the medical establishment have in common with the political establishment? Both have discovered that, in terms of self preservation, it’s preferable to sicken us slowly rather than quickly.
I am reminded of that reality by a new article about raw milk in the April issue of Harper’s Magazine by freelance writer Nathanael Johnson, “The Revolution Will Not Be Pasteurized: Inside the Raw-Milk Underground.” It’s not yet posted on the Harper’s site, but when it is, it will be available only to subscribers, or on newsstands. (In other words, you'll have to buy it. Nathanael has distributed a draft to people he interviewed, but because of copyright issues, I am prohibited from posting it.) I strongly encourage you to read it, since it’s a well done, in-depth treatment of the debate, science, and a few of the personalities involved in the raw milk issue, focusing heavily on the experiences of Canadian raw-milk farmer Michael Schmidt, who went on a hunger strike last year in response to a government crackdown on his dairy.
While it’s overall a carefully researched and insightful assessment, I would call Nathanael to task over his treatment of the 2006 California illnesses some individuals attribute to Organic Pastures Dairy Co. He becomes one of those accusers when he states, “In the fall of 2006, for instance, California officials announced that raw milk tainted with E.coli was responsible for a rash of illnesses. It is legal to sell unpasteurized dairy in California, and the tainted milk came from Organic Pastures, in Fresno…” Even the state’s Department of Health Services, which is totally opposed to raw milk and whose report was full of errors, hedged its opinion by saying there was “likely” a connection between tainted milk and the dairy.
He then mentions later in his article that he interviewed Mark McAfee of OPDC a year ago this month, which was several months before the California Department of Food and Agriculture negotiated a settlement with OPDC to avoid any additional legal actions around the milk recall of September 2006. I can only assume Nathanael’s research on this particular aspect of the raw milk issue was incomplete, or that an editor foisted the accusation into the article.
In the course of his interview with Mark, in which Mark was his usual candid self in discussing the possibility of illness. (“If my milk gets someone sick, I deserve some blame, but not all of it. People have to take responsibility for maintaining their own immune systems.”) Nathanael observes: “A dying child will make people change their behavior. The diseases that might stem from a lack of bacteria are much more subtle. They come on slowly. It’s difficult to link cause and effect. Businesses that contribute to chronic disease often flourish while businesses that contribute to acute disease get shut down.”
Excellent point. The rates of chronic disease have skyrocketed over the last forty years, but the key is that it’s all happened over a period of forty years. It’s almost unnoticeable year to year. When people look around after many years, as they are doing now, and realize there are epidemic levels of autism, asthma, and allergies, it’s much more difficult to lay blame than when a few serious cases of food poisoning crop up within days of each other.
It’s a similar phenomenon with our economy. For the last forty years, our political leaders have encouraged ever-more borrowing to create an illusion of prosperity. Now that the edifice is showing signs of crumbling (via the sub-prime mortgage crisis, devaluation of the dollar, soaring energy costs, bailouts of investment banks, etc., etc., etc.), it’s similarly much more difficult for people to lay blame for a fraud of enormous proportions than if we had had a few years of serious financial pain somewhere along the way to squeeze excess out of the system.
Underlying all this is the real modus operandi--that large-scale pain and sacrifice have become huge no-nos in our culture, so much so that the apparatchik will go to extreme lengths to avoid such unpleasantness, and any hint of blame that might result. Blame is to be avoided at all costs, to be left for some other guy/gal in the future.
***
To those wondering if the request by OPDC and Claravale Farms for a temporary restraining order against AB 1735 exposes the questionable legislative process that led to creation of the ten-coliform-per-milliliter standard, the answer is yes. It’s contained in an affidavit by a lobbyist and former legislator, Rusty Areais, who has worked on behalf of the dairies to overturn the legislation. He says, “In all my years of working in the Capitol (nearly 30) I have never seen a department of the government (CDFA) sponsor legislation under false pretenses and actively misrepresent what that legislation enacts (AB 1735).”
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (43)
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/mar1308oversight-jw.html
I've excerpted a portion here: On eight occasions, facilities barred FDA inspections from fully reviewing their food safety practices. Current laws don't empower the FDA to compel firms to produce records. "On one occasion, inspectors were denied access to written records by the facility that was the site of the 2006 outbreak," the authors wrote."
I know this is a bit off-topic, but I thought it was relevant enough to post in comments and thought some of you might find it interesting.
This is a true statement, but can you imagine public acceptance of this? And by way of explanation, that the protective bacteria we need in our gut is physiological strains of e.coli?
Natasha Campbell McBride writes in her book "Gut and Psychology Syndrome":
"...If we are not meant to digest Lactose, then why do some people seem to manage it perfectly well? The answer is that these people have the right bacteria in their gut. One of the major Lactose digesting bacteria in the human gut is E.coli. It comes as a surprise to many people that physiological strains of E. coli are essential inhabitants of a healthy digestive tract. They appear in the gut of a healthy baby from the first days after birth in huge numbers: 10 x7 - 10 x9 CFU/g.and stay in these same numbers throughout life, providing that they do not get destroyed by antibiotics and other environmental influences. Apart from digesting Lactose, physiological strains of E.coli produce vitamin K and vitamins B1, B2, B6, B12, produce anti-biotic-like substances called colicins, and control other members of their own family which can cause disease. In fact having your gut populated by the physiological strains of E. coli is the best way to protect yourself from pathogenic species of E.coli. They also take a huge and complex part in appropriate functioning of the immune system, which we will talk about later...."
Where can you get these physiological strains of e.coli? You guessed it - from mom's raw milk, or other raw milk.
"When FDA investigators found objectionable conditions, investigators found they took no "meaningful" enforcement action and overlooked repeat violations, even at multiple facilities operated by Natural Selection Foods, the firm that was linked to the 2006 E coli O157:H7 outbreak. "
Just think, had the FDA done their job, perhaps the spinach E-Coli episode may have been adverted.
Blair, I've found that many don't want to take ownership of personal responsibility. I'd bet the farm that there are and were "warning labels" on OP and Claravale raw dairy. As stated before, most who consume raw foods, research first and then make their choices.
Would that more politicians should stand up and speak the truth, and we might not have the 40-year lag between cause and effect which David and Nathaneal Johnson describe.
That "likely" issue may well be a mistake. And if so I apologize, but it seems to me a matter of semantics in the big picture. (I suppose in the smaller view that's an issue that is critical in terms of whether McAfee gets sued - but I'm really interested in the larger question: Is this stuff good for you or not?) Regardless, the state agencies acted as if they had presumed guilt. I think I make it clear that there are plenty of reasons people raised to take issue with the cdfa ect. I was beginning to wonder what was going on with the CDHS myself. They took months to comply with my public records request, then sent a bare ghost of what I'd asked for. I followed up but the next time they omitted lab documents. Finally, I got a lab tech on the line explained again what I wanted and got it (though in the process they said 'you want to see the pfge patterns?' 'Yeah, that's what my original request said' - 'Well, you know you won't be able to tell anything from that, they're just lines.' As if I wouldn't be able to compare the patterns for myself). The patterns from the DNA analysis do match for the five samples they have - in both restriction enzymes. In the end you can count on bureaucrats to be slow and difficult to deal with - but they aren't going to break the law and falsify lab results.
So we know that five kids got sick right around the same time. We know that they all drank dairy from OP. Could they all have had some other contaminated food that was the actual vector? I suppose it's possible - but in my interviews with the families of the kids there was no overlap in the other putative foods (sushi for one, under cooked hamburger for another, ect). Occam's razor points to raw milk.
One other point, we know that just before that Labor Day cows had died all up and down the Central Valley from heat stress. It was a period when McAfee's ecosystem would have been vulnerable.
In the end though - it's much less interesting for me to dive into the rabbit hole of trying to track down the movements of every microbe than it is to consider the implications: Suspend your disbelief for a moment and just consider what it means that so many people didn't get sick. That of the children that drank from the same ostensibly contaminated jugs, only those who hadn't been drinking raw milk for a while got sick.
Of course there could have been. Since it appears the "powers that be" stopped testing/investigating when raw dairy was mentioned, we'll never know. I believe "inconclusive" is the term.
Yes indeedy, if raw milk was the cause of those 5 kids becoming sick, I would find that truely amazing;that only they got sick when so many consume the raw dairy from OP. I just hppen to have a jug during that time and I am a sporatic milk drinker, I didn't get sick.
As for being "good for you". Any food in it's natural state (no added chemical,pollutants,
unadulterated, etc) is good for you (should I tack on, in moderation?)
The spinach contamination corralates with and includes many dairies (pasturized and unpasturized)and other food processors. Poor sanitation, unhealthy workers (Hepatitis contamination, etc), incorrect transportation/storage, etc. appear to be the main reasons for any outbreak.
Simple sanitation, healthy cows/employees, correct delivery of products,correct environment, etc. are the keyes for keeping foods as risk free as possible.
If your employees and/or cows are unhealthy, you increase your risks of contamination, if your area of business is unsanitary, again you increase your risks of contamination, just as transporting items, if done incorrectly will increase the risk of contamination. It's not rocket science.
How do you know they stopped investigating when raw dairy was mentioned? Were you there in the rooms with any of these sick children when the interviews took place? Have you ever been a part of an investigation involving pathogen contamination?
What information are you operating from to even make the above statement?
The state had both spinach and raw milk from the Martin home in their possession and, rather than test either, threw them out.
Sylvia, you state that it could have been other items, do you have any information on what other items the children ate that was exactly the same to have a matching PFGE pattern?
We had this very discussion (regarding which foods were tested by the State of California) just last week. It lasted 65 comments long. As a regular reader of this blog, I really don't think it is necessary to rehash old topics, especially one that has no clear resolution like this one. It is a waste of everyone's time.
If you would like to know how the regular and not-so-regular respondents of this blog replied to your above query, please see the 'comments' section of 'How Do You Fight Defamation by Innuendo? Mark McAfee May Have the Best Formula, for Now'. The link to the article is at the left of this column.
The key word I used was "appeared". I'll counter your question with another; How do you know they didn't stop investigating?
"Have you ever been a part of an investigation involving pathogen contamination?"
Yes, I have. Have you?
"Sylvia seems to have all the answers here with no back up for her claims."
You percieve that I have all the answers? Wow. Thank you Cheryl.
I read all 65 comments. The conversations seem to revolve around the Martin kid and the facts of his case. In this case, it seems that for some reason the milk and spinach was not tested. There were 5 children with matching blueprints of E-coli 0157:H7 in this outbreak. What do we know about the other children?
My question was not answered in the 65 comments you referred me to. How do we know they stopped investigating other sources of e-coli contamination just because raw milk was found to have been consumed? Is this a statement of fact (please refer me to these facts) or someone’s opinion of what they think happened?
Does anyone know the protocol used in hospitals when a person is suspected of having a food borne illness? Are there particular questions asked? Maybe a list of food and non-food sources?
I’m just asking questions. It’s not a personal attack on you. So this is your personal opinion that they stopped investigating other sources once they discovered raw milk was consumed. How did you come to have this opinion? What facts in this outbreak is it based on?
When you were involved in an investigation involving a food borne illness, what questions did they ask you? Were they random verbal questions or did they use a form of some sort? In your situation, did they follow a particular protocol? What pathogen was discovered that made you ill? Or was it someone in your family?
When I was in a norovirus outbreak at a conference, our questionnaire was tailored to the food served at the event but allowed us to offer extra-curricular meals on the form as well.
I will have to venture into civilization for Harper's. Thanks for what I am sure is an interesting read, Nathanael Johnson.
Amanda
The above mannual is pretty generic for most facilities. If you have a reportable disease/illness, depending on what it is, the facility usually has a set amount of time for reporting it to the state dept of health and/or the CDC et al. Forms? Yes, there can be numerous forms to fill out.
http://www.in.gov/isdh/form/pdfs/49689_E_Coli.pdf
http://www.in.gov/isdh/form/pdfs/49693_Salmonellosis.pdf
The above are basic forms used.I was not in Indiana when I had Salmonella,from store bought ice-cream. The protocol was the form questions and numerous stool samples.
There are many questions unanswered that the State of Ca neglected to answer in their final report. Of course the only reports I've seen are what's in the paper and available on line.I've also read what was posted on this and other blogs by the mothers of some of those children. So, yes, in my opinion, from the information put forth to the public, it shows that the state did not do a comprehensive investigation. As Elizabeth pointed out;"The state had both spinach and raw milk from the Martin home in their possession and, rather than test either, threw them out." Sloppy? Incomplete? you betcha. The state's investigation in regards to the E-Coli appears to be done as well as the slaughter house inspectors. Just think, had the state examined the spinach and raw milk from the Martin home, there may have been some proof and there would be no speculation nor the use of the term "likely".
“Court sides with state against raw milk producer”
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=8149
Below the article is the link to the 5th District Court of Appeal opinion in Kawamura v. Organic Pastures Dairy Company, case No. F051733 (Super. Ct. No. 04CECG03713), authored by Acting Presiding Justice Rebecca A. Wiseman, with whom Justices Betty L. Dawson and Brad R. Hill both concurred.
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/links/F051733.PDF
What’s all this business about A.G. Kawamura trying to force Organic Pastures to make several years’ worth of payments to the Big Dairy Processor’s pricing pool?
“The [trial] court ordered Organic Pastures to pay the following amounts, which included penalties and prejudgment interest: $313,481.47 in pool obligations under the Pooling Act; $5,493.41 in fees under the Pooling Act; $1,182.84 in fees and assessments under the Stabilization Act; $906.67 in security charges under the Security Act; and $174.27 in fees under the safety law.”
The California Department of Food & Agriculture, A.G. Kawamura, Mark W. Snauffer, Rebecca A. Wiseman, Betty L. Dawson, and Brad R. Hill have some serious explaining to do.
The forms you posted are very informative. When a person becomes ill from a pathogen, there is a standard protocol of questions asked pertaining to that particular pathogen and a system that is set up for reporting this information to the state health departments and CDC.
In the case that we’re discussing on this blog, a similar investigation was conducted on the 5 children. Does anyone believe that got to the question about raw dairy and then stopped asking the remaining questions on the form? That’s what would have had to happen in all 5 cases to make the statement [Since it appears the "powers that be" stopped testing/investigating when raw dairy was mentioned].
The Martin case is perplexing. Why didn’t they test the milk and spinach? Many people on this blog know detailed information about this case. Does anyone know why it wasn’t tested? It doesn’t make sense. There must be some logical explanation.
Again, this is only one of the five children that became ill in 2006 after drinking OP dairy products. What is known about the other children?
Sylvia's supposition may not be based on pure fact, but a lot of folks who read/contribute to this blog have had bad experiences with regards to bureaucrats and raw milk; enough to know that it IS possible that happened in these cases.
We tend to get a little passionate (ok a LOT passionate) about this issue when it could affect our rights to obtain something we see as a basic human need. This is a battle all raw milk lovers are involved in on one level or another. We tend to defend our own against bureaucrats.
I saw that article too, an am very curious. I thought the only thing Mark sold to anyone other than his "customers" was the skim milk left over from cream? Perhaps the gov't is saying if he sells that to other producers or such is what makes him have to "pay to play"?
Anyone have any info to share on this? We sure would appreciate reading.
One strange thing is that OP does bring in outside milk and yet the ruling says something to the effect that he processes only his own milk and that fact is not in dispute. There are distinctions in milk law here about "milk" and other classes of products. OP does apparently outsource milk for non-grade A milk products, so perhaps those don't apply here. I have only given the ruling a cursory skim, so perhaps the answers are there.
Amanda