Now that I’ve had a few hours to reflect, I feel reasonably confident that something will come out of the California hearing. However, it won’t be a repeal of the 10-coliform-per-milliliter standard of AB1735. Sen. Dean Florez, who chaired yesterday’s California Senate hearing on raw milk, said as much on several occasions.
Perhaps most dramatically, he asked a group of five scientific experts at the conclusion of their testimony in favor of raw milk, “What should be put on the governor’s desk?”
One of the experts stated, “Go back to what it was.”
Sen. Florez shot back, “It is not going back to the way it was. It is going to be a tougher standard.”
Now, at first glance, that sounds ominous. But as the hearing proceeded over a period of six hours, it became clear that Sen. Florez has thought about the process very carefully, and appreciates that, politically, it is impossible to simply repeal AB1735, since that already failed in the California Assembly in January.
What he envisions is a replacement of AB1735 with something that appears tougher to germ-frightened legislators, but is in fact more reasonable for producers. Later in his questioning of the pro-raw-milk experts, he stated, “Why don’t we talk about pathogen testing and HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control point)? At the end of the day, (raw milk) is a different product. I’m just trying to figure out a better test that comes to a standard. But we’re not going back to the way it was. We’re going to strengthen the standard and then we are going to the pasteurized milk industry and doing the same thing there.” That last line elicited strong applause from the 200 or so supporters in the audience.
Sen. Florez in his questioning of experts pro and con, along with the producers—Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and Collette Cassidy (co-owner with her husband Ron Garthwaite) of Claravale Farm—continually returned to the themes of HACCP and pathogen testing. (HACCP involves developing a highly structured production process, which can be audited, to reduce the risk of food contamination.) The area where he showed the most uncertainty was over the specifics of a coliform standard—whether it should be increased from 10 to possibly 50 or 100, or whether it can be dispensed with entirely.
He explicitly invited the experts in favor of raw milk to help. “I would encourage you to conference call and produce a bill for Sen. (Edward) Vincent and me that is stronger than a single test. I am asking you to go a step further for us. Determine how Claravale and Organic Pastures can be the leaders in raw milk…Agriculture has a lot of sway in this building…Our raw milk dairies don’t have political clout. We’re trying to allow raw milk dairies to have political clout.”
Mark McAfee suggested he was quite receptive to the senator’s suggested approach. “I am very comfortable with HACCP,” he said. He pointed out that he already has a “basic” HACCP program in place that he had used when growing apples, though Sen. Florez prodded him to go further. “You say you have a basic HACCP plan. Are you ready to do a world class HACCP plan?”
Mark said he was prepared to accept a plan that could be audited by outsiders, though “not the state. It all has to do with the mindset of the participants.” He also pointed out he is already testing OPDC’s milk for key pathogens on a regular basis.
While Mark said he was open to a coliform standard of 50 coliforms per milliliter, Colleen said she wasn’t. “Even with 50, we wouldn’t pass consistently.”
What encourages me that Sen. Florez is serious is that he was talking in terms of specific items that could be included within legislation, and what compromises might be possible. Politicians are usually more serious at that stage than when they wax eloquent about broad generalities.
It was also clear he appreciates the urgency created by the lawsuit filed by OPDC and Claravale against the California Department of Food and Agriculture (in which a judge granted a temporary restraining order against enforcing AB1735). He asked Colleen about the suit, and she answered that it was only filed when Claravale and OPDC were pushed close to the brink of shutting down. “It’s preferable to have a legislative solution than a court solution,” she told Sen. Florez.
Sen. Florez was clearly very pissed at CDFA for not being there, and even asked Mark and Colleen what they thought. Mark wisely took the high road, saying “I’m very disappointed. They have a lot to add.”
After the hearing, I asked Sen. Florez what else might happen because of CDFA’s refusal to send a representative. “We’re not done with that," he told me. "We’re going to ask the governor’s office to looking into it.”
And has the senator become a raw milk convert? No, he said, he doesn’t drink it. “I’m trying to remain neutral,” he said. He added that hearing from his old classmate, Christine Chessen, last fall, “inspired me to try to get a better standard.” Left unsaid is that he’s being talked about as a future candidate for lieutenant governor.
I’ll have more to report on the hearing—there was lots of very interesting testimony from consumers and experts alike. It was amazing that six hours of testimony at the end of a very long day could be so provocative, but it was. Even Sen Vincent, a long-time veteran of the California Senate, and nothing of the kind of expert on raw milk that Sen. Florez has become, was impressed. "I was the first black mayor of Inglewood. I’ve been in the Assembly…This is the best meeting I’ve ever been to where the public responded. This is the best meeting I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of meetings."
"He asked Colleen about the suit, and she answered that it was only filed when Claravale and OPDC were pushed close to the brink of shutting down. Its preferable to have a legislative solution than a court solution, she told Sen. Florez."
Sorry, but I disagree. A legeslative solution, while possibly favorable in the short term, will leave the door open to the CDFA and CDPH to administratively tighten the screws later, or for the CDFA to do another midnight raid on our rights as they did last year, undoing any current legeslative solutions that are promulgated.
No, because of the government’s past actions, I feel only a slam dunk, scorched earth victory, in the form of a court telling the CDFA and the rest to basically go away, will work and prevent future harassment.
Additionally, I see nothing in David’s reporting on the hearing (my ‘puter doesn’t have audio) regarding another issue, equal to or more important than, the safety issue.
Where is the discussion about folks rights? Where is the discussion about a consumer’s right to make their own choices regarding nutrition, rather than having the nanny state give us a list of government approved foods that we must choose from, that may or may not inmclude foods we would choose if we had the right of personal choice?
At the end of the day, that is what this is all about…personal choice, because both sides can come up with this or that study that supports their side.
All consumers deserve the right to look at the issue and the information on both sides, and make their own choice.
That’s what I think…but then, I’m just a dumb goat farmer.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
Lysteria is a bogeyman, used to scare folks by the public health system. Can it happen? Yes. Is it likely to? Not according to CDC data.
Bob Hayles
Thank you so much for attending the hearing and reporting back to us, we are all very grateful. Things do sound better than what I was thinking would happen. If those "world class" plans can be done, Mark is the one to do it. His passion, drive and determination stand strongly in favor of success.
Christine Chessen, how I thank you too! If only EVERYONE could understand the power WE THE PEOPLE truly have, we would not be in so many messes as we are now. NEVER let ANYONE tell you "one person can’t make a difference". We CAN and DO. It works better when all those "one person"s get together though. If everyone who reads this blog would take the time to speak to their representatives in Congress and state legislatures, we will be able to make a BIG difference in what ever we choose to stand up for.
Oh, sorry. I didn’t mean to get up so high on the soapbox. I just get a little excited when I see how people working together makes a difference.
Keep up the great work David, and thanks again.
Good reporting, David.
Sharon
The hearing last night was loaded with good testimony and left me feeling optimistic that if properly drafted with controls on the agency’s discretion, a new law might be livable.
"The bacteria was discovered near a piece of equipment used on the production line after the milk is pasteurized, according to local media reports." http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=82734-fsa-list-ria
Also, the 3 elderly adults and fetus were typical victims with compromised immune systems. Even the milk, by virtue of its pasteurization, had a compromised immune system, as Steve significantly pointed out.
"Got probiotic milk?"
Its C2–not Darth Vadar, though I do know him. Been thinking about our interesting exchange earlier (for a dumb goat farmer you seem pretty smart) and decided that we might vacation on the same planet sometimes, but do not routinely live together. For that reason, it is really tough to talk about the science, especially the purported health claims. For that reason, I’m not going to respond point-by-point to the other discussion, though I did read it and contemplate your points. These new posts about what is going on over in California makes me think that you and others from the raw milk community might understand how public health and science view Listeria and other outbreaks given more time and effort. Personally, I appreciate the effort to find common ground, especially if it leads to prevention of even a single illness and promotion of your farms and lifestyle. I wont use silver bullet againobviously not a productive approach to communication.
To Steve:
Bingo–you proposed a hypothesis that can be tested: survival/growth of Listeria in raw milk verus milk contaminated after pasteurization. Maybe it’s been done, or maybe not…but, getting closer to how scientists approach these questions.
C2
In the past year there have probably been a dozen or two farms in PA and NY whose raw milk was claimed by the respective state agencies to be "contaminated" with L. monocytogenes – I lost count and even stopped bothering to forward the events to this and other groups when they occurred. (There was yet another one in PA announced just yesterday.) Every single press release out of the NY and PA state agencies were boilerplate and only the farm name and location were changed. All also contained the language "…while no illnesses have been reported…".
So, as Steve stated, L. monocytogenes in pasteurized milk is potentially very dangerous and deadly, but in clean raw milk from pasture-fed cows with its full complement of probiotic bacteria Listeria is pretty much a non-issue.
Will they truely apply the same standards to pasturized dairy as they do/will to raw dairy?
I head part of the hearings last night, as others said, the Senator was impressive with his questioning and knowledge. It was very informative.
As said numerous times, the animals health and sanitation is the key to decreasing/eleminating contamination.
"Also, the samples are chemically treated to specifically encourage the growth of Listeria and inactivate competing bacteria, and are then cultured at 90 degrees for two days."
There is no Tri-Corder test to find Listeria in milk (or any other food). What you describe is traditional culture of the bacteria, still the most definitive method. Please beware of the pregnancy-like test kits that some are using on their farms to "prove" Listeria, E. coli O157 or other dangerous pathogens are not present. You question the manufacturers of drugs, but not the people marketing these kits to your farms?
One of the key differences in a HACCP for raw milk, would probably be that it won’t be a set of procedures applicable just to the milking/processing operation, since raw milk’s differences in quality literally start with the animal’s feed and nourishment.
A significant signal sent by the Senator (in so many words, said more than once) was that normally, agricultural interests get several chances to make up their own rules, drawn from their own expertise, to meet the legislature’s goals for food safety. He freely admitted that the procedure did not work in the case of AB1735, where the mandate came top-down instead of from the farmers. He said the hearing, and the work that is now beginning, is an attempt to correct for the fact that raw milk producers are small and do not have much political clout. In effect, he was promising to create that political clout (notwithstanding, that the hearing room was 200-strong with clout).
Again, all of this sounded pretty good, and we’ll see how it works out. What was quite obvious, is that individuals’ concerns were important, were heard, were credible and as Florez said late in the proceeding, the very fact that a hearing went on for six hours is the kind of political "hay" that he can use to convince legislators who have to vote, that this issue is important.
Finally, the fact that CDFA was absent clearly hurt them. By not playing, they in effect marginalized themselves. They are not to be discounted by any means, since their industry-based political clout is substantial, but the Senator’s promise to deal next with pasteurized milk, after having set benchmarks with raw milk (instead of the other way around) seems to me to be quite an important strategic strength which has come out of this process.
It took me a while to find the citations, but in answer to your question the following recent studies have shown that pathogen counts in raw milk samples tend to attenuate over time.
http://www.realmilk.com/documents/SheehanPowerPointResponse.pdf
——-
Doyle et al. (1982) showed that C. jejuni survived longer in sterile milk than in raw milk and suggested that the microflora of the latter "may have produced metabolites toxic to C. jejuni." They also noted that, "unlike sterile milk, raw milk contains lactoperoxidase," which "produces metabolites that are toxic to many gram-negative bacteria."
BSK Food & Dairy Laboratories (2002) inoculated raw colostrum and raw milk samples provided by Organic Pastures, a family-owned dairy from Fresno, CA with a mix of three pathogens and monitored the bacterial counts over the course of 14 days. The laboratory concluded, "Raw colostrum and raw milk do not appear to support the growth of Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 or Listeria monocytogenes."
In both studies, pathogen counts declined over time and in some cases reached below the limit of detection within a week.
Raw milk may not kill pathogens but it contains important substances that do.
References:
* Doyle MP and Romand JD. Prevelance and survival of Campylobacter jejuni in unpasteurized milk. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982;44(5):1154-8.
* McAffee M, unpublished data.
We actually DO probably reside on the same planet…the difference is you live LEFT of the prime meridian while I live RIGHT of it…LOL.
I do have a specific question for you, and I want you to combine thought processes when you answer…answer as a member of the public health system on the scientific side, but also consider that you are a citizen of this country and believe (I hope) in the freedoms that our forefathers bled and died to give us.
My most passionatly held reason for the legalization of raw milk, and other nutritionally dense foods, is because of my belief that the government has no right, morally or under the constitution, to deny citizens the right to make their own nutritional choices without government interference.
I believe that both sides of the issue can be argued using this or that study, and this or that "scientific paper" or published research. For every study you have showing raw dairy’s dangers, I can come up with another showing benefits that outweigh the risks.
If that is right, then the only way to make a decision is left to rights. Do we, as free citizens of the greatest country on earth, have the right to make our own nutritional choices, and if not, what is the legal justification for that denial?
You could not get me to eat McDonald’s food if I was starving to death. I won’t touch Sushi (well, not exactly…I’ve used sushi for years, I just always called it fishbait). I won’t eat deli meats or commercial hot dogs.
All of those foods have a far worse track record, disease wise, than raw dairy. All are also legal.
And I wouldn’t make ANY of them illegal, or try to deny folks that want them the right to purchase them.
All I ask is that folks have the same rights regarding nutrient dense foods.
Let’s make this personal.
Suppose you and I were neighbors, and I had a few dairy goats. You come over one day and tell me you want a gallon of raw goat’s milk, and you know I charge 12 bucks a gallon for it, and hold out a ten and two ones. Where does the government have the right to say I can’t take the money and you take the milk? Show me in the constitution where that is allowed? Tell me where the constitution allows the government to interfere with a private food transaction between citizens.
C2…sorry, but I jusat believe in the intentions of the founding fathers more than most folks. If someone doesn’t like the constitution, change it, don’t trash it.
Bob Hayles
Were seeing another side to you. C2 has commanded your respect. Its nice that you are able to let down your obnoxious side and interact with someone in an intelligent and respectful mannerthank you!
I am curious as to where the original exchange between the two of you took place. Another blog or email?
By the way, I dont believe the constitution says anything about selling alcohol to children, but we have laws regulating this type of sale. Most people believe it is a good idea. Alcohol consumption is dangerous for children and raw milk contaminated with a pathogen is equally as dangerous.
Cordially,
CP
I could ask a similar question: Have you ever met a parent whose child became seriously ill from drinking raw milk? Put these two parents together in the same room and you have the discussions taking place on this blog.
I would love to see a study conducted with two control groups of children who suffer from the same severity of asthma. One group of children drinks raw milk and other group takes a high quality probiotic. My hypothesis: both groups would have a reduction in their symptoms.
Thank you Ken for that bit of information. My brother is in his 50s and I think the last time he was sick was as a small child, he contracted the mumps about a year after recieving the vacc. He is having a difficult time not being "healthy". He isn’t getting worse, so far things appear to have leveled, his K+ has come down to 5.7 from 7.3…We are monitoring his labs. Poor guy looks like a junky.
"One group of children drinks raw milk and other group takes a high quality probiotic. "
Is your point that a child should have the "high quality probiotic" instead of raw dairy? Don’t you feel that is dictating what parents feed their children?
As pointed out, deli meats, hot dogs have a far worse track record for contamination than raw dairy. And to top it off, it has been approved that the deli meats et al can be sprayed with viruses. How unappetizing, not something I would recommend. I can only imagine the disruption of the guts natural flora.
Any food that is contaminated with certain bacteria has the potential to be dangerous. The 3 who died in Mass. are a good example, as is the spinach infection.
http://www.ecoliblog.com/
If not careful, Bob, I’ll uncloak. Glad that you understand and respect anonymous: a government worker compared with a goat farmer can’t say what they want to directly. But, anomalies, like sh** happens.
Your fundamental question: "the government has no right, morally or under the constitution, to deny citizens the right to make their own nutritional choices without government interference."
On my planet, we strive to protect public health. Your question seems to relate to how we do that. If reading correctly, you don’t want any regulation/rules that come from government. I might agree that dissemination of information is better, but sometimes government must intervene. With regard to raw milk (or alcohol as brought up by CP and could be extended into drunk driving, or, gangs and shooting people, etc….way off topic),,,we simply cannot look at the data (from our planet) and not take action concerning the potential injury to vulnerable populations from raw milk. I would (and am) consider any added scientific information, but have not seen data convincing enough to stop my right as a public health worker to influence the statement that RAW MILK IS A RISK TO INFANTS and other youngsters, maybe the elderly and immunocompromisesd. Given that assessment of the data, it seems to be my duty as a public health practitioner to do what is needed to prevent even a single illness/death. But, per our exchange this week, I am very willing to keep an open mind about the best way to approach our differenc in opinion and interpretation of scientific data.
No doubt, for some people, raw milk tastes better, and maybe even has some benefits (still skeptical beyond placebo). But, as a whole, the data tells me that it is dangerous and even deadly for some populations. There are other foods and mistakes in processing foods that are equally or more dangerous–they are being dealt with and how that’s working (or not) is perhaps on other blogs. Final opinion on raw milk: ban it, regulate it, compromise with a HACCP like they are talking about in California…not sure, but deny (gloss over the risks), NO.
Also, I’d love to visit your goat farm someday (likely cloaked). Love goats–my favorite is Saanens. What breed do you raise and milk?
C2
As a public health official,how do you feel about vaccinating children with sometimes as many as 9 vaccines at once?There is an abundance of reputable research that indicates that this is actually harming children,but public health policy does not change.In fact many parents believe that vaccinations are mandatory,because public health officials and doctors tell them so.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/driscoll11.html
"A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.
The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)
Then, in 2000, CHCs findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections.
When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.
I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that paresis is listed in Mercks Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr. Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:
Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed.
I must mention here that Dr. Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.
Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word allergy is synonymous with sensitivity and inflammation. It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word vaccination. This is what vaccines do: they sensitize (render allergic) an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.
Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or -itis diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: its where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.
There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are people, too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.
Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isnt stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:
Dr. Jean Dodds: Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines… (9)
Christina Chambreau, DVM: Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine. (10)
Martin Goldstein, DVM: I think that vaccines…are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today.
Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits. (12)
Mike Kohn, DVM: In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals. (13)"
antibiotics are/were touted as the "silver bullet" for decades. but now look at what the results of that also failed experiment have brought us all.
an news blip out yesterday:
from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080417/sc_nm/food_bacteria_dc_3
MILAN (Reuters) – The use of antibiotics and other anti-microbial agents throughout the food chain contributes to the growth of resistant bacteria which can be passed on to humans through food, EU’s food agency said on Thursday.
The resistance of bacteria has become a growing concern as anti-microbials become less effective in fighting infections, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in a statement.
This has coincided with a rise in bacterial resistance to anti-microbial agents in animals, the EFSA said, citing a draft opinion paper by one of its expert panels which was looking into causes of the growing and diverse range of resistant bacteria and bacteria-borne resistant genes.
The EFSA said hygiene controls should be tightened at every stage of the food chain, from veterinary medicine to food processing and preparation, to prevent the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance.
The main foods carrying antimicrobial resistant bacteria were poultry meat, eggs, pork or beef as well as fresh salads, which can be contaminated during preparation, handling and processing, it said.
The panel found bacteria could be passed directly to people from contaminated food of animal origin carrying resistant bacteria which could colonize or infect people after ingestion.
Bacteria could also be passed to humans by the consumption of fresh produce from land irrigated with water contaminated by slurry or sewage. Food of animal and non-animal origin could also be contaminated during handling and preparation.
The Parma-based EFSA has called for more scientific information on the link between the use of anti-microbial agents in the food chain and transmission of the resistant bacteria to humans and runs consultations on the draft opinion until May 27.
(Reporting by Svetlana Kovalyova; editing by Chris Johnson)
you and c2 are arguing from a position of being completely "bought and paid for" by the corporate/government system that has delivered concentrated feed lot operations and ever more dangerous pathogens in the food chain.
the problem is your job description requires you to never see the reality, the truth, of what the "system" has done and is doing.
the definition of "crazy" is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result next time. how is your argument any different?
you’re going to "save" even one child? please, spare us. do you know how many children are "murdered" each year by vacinines every year? is it "worth the risk" if it’s your child? is it for the better good? you need to address these type of issues as fully as you attack "raw foods" before i’d even consider "listening to you with an open mind"
play your games because you must to justify your careers, but be aware that more and more free thinking, smart, observent individuals are becoming aware of your conflict of interest. your job(s) depend on it. but if (and when) you become capable of thinking for yourself(s) you’ll change sides in a heartbeat.
in the real world you don’t have a leg to stand on, you’re not saving anyone, quite the opposite, you’re the reason so many have compromised immune systems to begin with. i find it hard not to hold individuals like you personally responsible for much of what is wrong with the country (world) today and i believe you are incapable of helping steer us back to a sustainable path.
our "health" system is badly broken you are living in denial. period.
CP, the large-scale European PARSIFAL study observed 14,893 children aged 5 to 13 years and reported that "farm milk consumption ever in life showed a statistically significant inverse association with asthma." Also reported was the fact that consuming farm milk raw or boiling it on the stove top made no difference – "This might be the result of biased parental answers or may indicate that pasteurization is not of key importance because compounds other than microbes may play a role. This interpretation is supported by an analysis of Swiss alpine farm milk from exclusively grass-fed cows showing a higher content of omega-3 fatty acids than milk cows fed conserved grass such as silage."
According to the results of the published PARSIFAL research study, testing your hypothesis would not necessarily show a reduction in asthma from probiotics alone since qualities of farm milk other than bacteria are responsible for the beneficial results. I and my children will continue to drink the high-quality milk from our farmer’s grass-fed cows, obtaining probiotics and protection from asthma and other allergies in the process.
I may be wrong (it doesn’t happen often, but it IS possible), but I think that if you were to take the tax implications out of the equation regarding alcohol you would see the government’s desire to regulate it drop off dramatically.
Incidentally, as Steve said, it is not illegal for a minor to consume alcohol, at least not here in Georgia. It is illegal for a minor (actually anyone under 21, not 18) to purchase alcohol, but a paernt may give their child alcohol if they desire.
When you get down to it, minors can purchase alcohol legally if they really wish to consume it. All they have to do is go to the medicine aisle at a grocery store and buy Niquil…25% alcohol…50 proof.
Bob
As a public servant he works for the people and must do the people’s bidding, not run his own agenda.
I’ll go item by item in my response. It’s not that I’m setting up a "gotcha", it’s just that it’s tea easiest way for my befuddled brain to answer…
"If not careful, Bob, I’ll uncloak. Glad that you understand and respect anonymous: a government worker compared with a goat farmer can’t say what they want to directly. But, anomalies, like sh** happens."
I do understand, and have a VERY reluctant respect for your need of it, but, like other things, I have to add a "but"…
The folks that led the founding of this country, people like Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, et al, were, for the most part, wealthy individuals. They could have gone along to get along and remained very comfortable in their lives.
Instead, thay chose to put it all on the line…their fortunes, their very lives…much more than just a job…to do "the right thing". These people would not just have been fired, they would have been executed for having the strength of their convictions, and believing in them strongly enough to act on them.
But they did it anyway.
"Your fundamental question: "the government has no right, morally or under the constitution, to deny citizens the right to make their own nutritional choices without government interference."
On my planet, we strive to protect public health. Your question seems to relate to how we do that. If reading correctly, you don’t want any regulation/rules that come from government."
Wrong. I don’t see a problem with rules/regulations that prevent me from lying to folks about my product. I should have to answert honestly if asked about potential hazzards of raw dairy. I should not be allowed to say, "No, there is no evidence that raw milk might cause disease."
Every first time customer I have is given a multi-page handout with raw dairy info…pro and con…that references health issues. I tell my customers what the CDC says, and I also tell my customers what the Weston Price Foundation says. I inform my customers on both sides of the issue and let them make up their own minds…I let them exercise their RIGHT to make their own choices. What is the public health system so afraid of, that they will not allow that same right?
"I might agree that dissemination of information is better, but sometimes government must intervene."
No…dissemination of information is ALL the government has the right to do. Intervention beyond that is an infringement of rights. I should have to tell my customers the truth regarding raw milk. I should have to give them both sides of the argument. Mandating that is the end of governments right to interfere. After that it is a matter of personal choice.
"With regard to raw milk (or alcohol as brought up by CP and could be extended into drunk driving, or, gangs and shooting people, etc….way off topic),,,we simply cannot look at the data (from our planet) and not take action concerning the potential injury to vulnerable populations from raw milk. I would (and am) consider any added scientific information, but have not seen data convincing enough to stop my right as a public health worker to influence the statement that RAW MILK IS A RISK TO INFANTS and other youngsters, maybe the elderly and immunocompromisesd. Given that assessment of the data, s/deit seems to be my duty as a public health practitioner to do what is needed to prevent even a single illness/death. But, per our exchange this week, I am very willing to keep an open mind about the best way to approach our differenc in opinion and interpretation of scientific data."
No No No…a thousand times NO! Listen to what you said.
"have not seen data convincing enough to stop my right as a public health worker to influence the statement that RAW MILK IS A RISK TO INFANTS and other youngsters, maybe the elderly and immunocompromisesd. Given that assessment of the data, it seems to be my duty as a public health practitioner to do what is needed to prevent even a single illness/death."
First, where do you get a "right" as a public health official? Please show mt that in the constitution. We have a bill of rights, and I cannot find that. Every one of the first ten amendments gives rights to the people, not to government. As a matter of fact, they all RESTRICT government’s "rights".
"it seems to be my duty as a public health practitioner to do what is needed to prevent even a single illness/death."
You do realize that your thought process puts us back to riding horses for transportation, right? Current National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ans OSHA rules would not allow for the invention and manufacture of early cars that evolved to what we drive. Planes wouldn’t exist if current rules had been in place 75 years ago.
We wouldn’t have gone to the moon with current regs…hell, those brave folks blasted off on a piece of equipment made by the cheapest bidder, without "spaceship manufacturing rules"…and came back.
No, often as not, government rules stifle innovation more than they promote safety.
No doubt, for some people, raw milk tastes better, and maybe even has some benefits (still skeptical beyond placebo). But, as a whole, the data tells me that it is dangerous and even deadly for some populations. There are other foods and mistakes in processing foods that are equally or more dangerous–they are being dealt with and how that’s working (or not) is perhaps on other blogs. Final opinion on raw milk: ban it, regulate it, compromise with a HACCP like they are talking about in California…not sure, but deny (gloss over the risks), NO.
"Also, I’d love to visit your goat farm someday (likely cloaked). Love goats–my favorite is Saanens. What breed do you raise and milk?"
LaManchas, Alpines, and, after I pick them up Sunday, Saanens…Purebred, not American. I’ll have 7 of them here Sunday evening.
See ya Darth.
Bob
You are wearing me out…sorry about the comment concerning my right to "prevent even single death/illness." My personal opinion and the job just crossed over, forgive. Nevertheless, the more I read on this site (and especially Mark McAffees-what a nut)–I’m more inclined to BAN your beloved product. Rather disgusted with the lack of honest information. But, not yet closing my mind.
Are the Saanens you are bringing in kids or adults? One of my lofty dreams is to get out of the city/governmetn and have a few of those goats in the foothills.
I might come visit your farm–not that far away (but not in my jurisdiction, don’t worry) I’ll be cloaked, but really I’m not veru happy about the Darth thing–I’m better lookin than him and of a different gender.
Keep your product safe and be honest in your education to the public buying it…
C2
Eurika!!! I have it!!!
Hello Hillary…LOL…
The goats I am picking up tomorrow are all adult does, from first fresheners to one six year old. It’ll be interesting, as these are the first Saanens I have had. I started with Nubians when I was real green…never again, a real pain in the rear breed…then worked them out of my herd and brought in LaManchas and Alpines. I was actually looking to get more LaManchas this year, but I couldn’t find anyone with any for sale, so I wound up getting this small herd. I’m REAL picky about what animals come to the farm and these were the only ones that I considered acceptable. After doing lots of research over the last 2 months on Saanens I think I’ll enjoy having them.
I have a small bone to pick in your last post, and a repeat of a question. First the small bone:
"Nevertheless, the more I read on this site (and especially Mark McAffees-what a nut)–I’m more inclined to BAN your beloved product. Rather disgusted with the lack of honest information. But, not yet closing my mind."
Are there folks on my side of the raw milk issue that exaggerate, or even outright lie, regarding the alledged benefits of raw milk, and that lie about potential risks? Yep…there sure are, and they shouldn’t be allowed to. As a matter of fact, if you read back a post or two, I say that I see the government’s ONLY right in this issue is requiring producers to be truthfup, giving BOTH sides of the issue and allowing folks to make up their own minds.
At the same time we require honesty from producers, however, let’s also require the same honesty from regulatory agencies like the CDFA (Califirnia Dept of Food and Ag), the CDC, the FDA, and the USDA, along with all other regulatory agencies in various states.
Regardless of your feelings about Mark McAfee, the CDFA DID wrongly, without ANY evidence, accuse OP of sickening kids, forced a recall, and cost a private citizen a lot of money, with absolutely no evidence. They were so wrong they admitted it and wrote Organic Pastures a check for their lying and liability so the state of California wouldn’t get sued.
The CDC, USDA, and most state regulatory agencies routinely use the triple bogeyman of E Coli 157, Salmonella, and Lysteria as these horrible diseases that you will get if you consume raw milk. They imply that you WILL get one of them, not that it is a possibility, and tell folks that consuming raw milk is playing russian roulette…their words, not mine.
Well…let’s apply your truthfulness standards here. According to the CDC, the last death in this country from raw milk was in either 1978 or 1982 (I don’t remember for sure, and I’m too tired to look it up).
While folks on my side of this issue need to be truthful, the folks on your side of it really can’t ask for that truthfulness when they themselves aren’t truthful. I can spell "hipocracy". *note to Hillary…that’s directed at the system, not you personally.
Now, the repeated question:
You and I are neighbors. I have goats, and you want goat’s milk. I charge 12 bucks a gallon, and you will pay me 12 bucks for a gallon.
Show me in the constitution where the government has a right to say we cannot complete this private business transaction.
When you visit the farm, come uncloaked. I have a feeling we could have a really interested and spirited discussion about goats, raw milk, and such, without resorting to telling each other how stupid we are.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
Of course we all know that lysteria in pastuerized milk killed three and caused a spontaneous abortion last year in NE…
Bob
Please no! Not Hilary (I’m a registered republican, but might change to independent). Lets go back to Darth.
Regarding your question,
"You and I are neighbors. I have goats, and you want goat’s milk. I charge 12 bucks a gallon, and you will pay me 12 bucks for a gallon."
Seems fine if you follow (or change if you don’t like them) whatever rules your state requires to make that sale. What if you wanted to intentionally put feces in the milk–is that a right too? Or, as a different santitation/public heatlh example, what if someone wanted to dump human waste in a water source upstream of your farm, wouldn’t you want a rule against that and somebody to enforce it? Or, would it be their right to put sewage anywhere they pleased? If that analogy doesn’t work maybe I’m not getting the question (language barrier between our 2 planets). ,
"…the CDFA DID wrongly, without ANY evidence, accuse OP of sickening kids, forced a recall, and cost a private citizen a lot of money, with absolutely no evidence."
I read both health department reports from California(http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/washington-dc-hattrick/) on E. coli O157 and Campylobacter and disagree with you. The reports show the data and make appropriate conclusions based on the strengths and limitations of the findings. These two are interesting to compare since one didn’t have a "match" with the cows and the other did. If it were my jurisdiction, I would find the results compelling. Whether it would lead to a recall, hard to say. The "settlement" you describe doesn’t change anything in my mind. First, its the agriculture department not health. Second, I’ve seen regulators and their lawyers in government do things that go against science–very frustrating and driven by different things ranging from ignorance to politics to power grabs…see we agree sometimes.
C2 (aka Darth)
There would be conference calls about it, but without more epidemiologic information, the scenario you present would not generate a recall IMHO. However, a recall might be recommended with stronger epidemiologic links (and it doesn’t take dozens of cases and dead bodies to make the judgement call), especialy if the pathogen from the patients has the same DNA fingerprint.
Hope that is helpful.
C2
In this case, 4 other children also became ill with 0157:H7 and they drank the same brand of raw milk. They had the same DNA fingerprint of 0157:H7 to one of the children who contracted HUS.
In your professional opinion, how many more children would have needed to become ill before deciding to recall the raw milk products?
Curious
None. With that additional data, a recall and public warning/media release would be indicated. Also, not asked, but while isolation of the pathogen in the milk would make the case for a recall even stronger, it’s not needed if the epidemiologic data is good. This would be my opinion whether talking about raw milk, pasteurized milk, spinach, ground beef, sprouts, puffed cereal, or any other food/beverage implicated during an investigation.
C2