Why Do They Want to Scare and Deceive Us? The FTCLDF Argument Holds Important Clues
Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 08:58AM I’m struck in some of the discussions on my recent postings about just how much rope some people are willing to give the government apologists. When I wrote about the stuttering stammering performance of a supposed public health expert about raw milk, Amanda Rose and cp2 thought I had gone too far in criticizing the poor guy because he couldn’t formulate a coherent sentence to back up his claim that raw milk is “deadly.” The data’s all in his packet of data, advised one. If you look there, you’ll see that he is, indeed, coherent. No, I’m afraid not. That packet of data is just a compilation of supposed illnesses from raw milk—some questionable and some for real.
I think it’s this desire to believe that’s behind the sometimes lengthy discussions that go on here about whether raw milk is, indeed, as dangerous as the officials would have us believe. Some people just want so badly to trust that the authorities have our best interests at heart. After all, they dedicate their lives to public service and science. They must know something.
Unfortunately, the real intent of many of these authorities is to scare and deceive us, not to protect us. Because the raw milk “problem” in the context of the whole of food-borne illness and public health as a whole is the equivalent of a pinprick.
So why do they want to scare and deceive us?
Here is where the latest action on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) becomes so important. It’s all about business—the business of business, and the business of control.
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund’s Notice of Intent—even allowing for the fact that it is an argument on one side of an issue—is refreshing for its success in capturing the underlying issues. Steve Bemis summarizes it clearly following my previous post. They want to scare us into believing we need a totally unwieldy and intrusive system for tagging animals for the same reason they want to scare us about raw milk: so that big business can consolidate its factory-food path and government can move further down the road of ever-stricter control.
The primary obstacle in their path is the growing numbers of small sustainable farms, and the message they communicate about food and health. In the business scheme of things, small farms might be viewed as custom producers in a sea of factories.
Now, in most industries, the factories care little about the custom producers. The factories tolerate the custom producers as serving niche markets.
But in farming, it’s different. The problem with food is that it is such a staple, such a necessity. As much as agribusiness and government say all food is alike, growing numbers of people are coming to understand that is not the case. That truth is terribly threatening to the existing structure. The existing structure doesn't like to be threatened. Expect this case to be fought tooth and nail every step of the way.
Reader Comments (87)
I can envision the factory farms buying water beds for the cows. (said with tongue in cheek).
http://www.articleclick.com/milk-fatories.html
What is the process used to make all milk have a 3.9% fat content?
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/263
I listened to the talk that you linked to, but didn't hear anything about milk and bacteria. Did I miss something?
That aside, it was nevertheless instructive, for this reason: The speaker's educated, strongly expressed but mixed up opinions (combining truth--sometimes insightful truth--with thick-headed school-boy howlers) are the reason this issue is more about rights--the right to choose one's own food and the right to reject or accept others' ideas about food--than about science.
Once we give power to regulators (or worse, intellectuals) to determine what we may or may not do based on "enlightened" opinion and "science," both of which will inevitably be at times mistaken, massaged, and manipulated, we have lost our humanity. Yet that is what we have today, in spades. Every good idea becomes a law or a rule.
I received responses from two legislators to protest letters I sent regarding the Mark Nolt situation. Both made the point that raw milk sales are legal in Pennsylvania, but merely require a permit (which they emphasize is "free" as if a permit fee is the only way to add costs to a product or infringe on freedoms). The notion that there's something fundamentally wrong when a consumer cannot buy milk from a farmer without a third party giving that farmer permission to sell it, is beyond them. Both legislators also, by the way, mistakenly referred to regulation as "law". These attitudes are symptomatic of an overly powerful government. Gary Cox is right about them working for us, but these days that's only in theory.
The politicos say raw milk {not raw cream, not raw butter, not raw yogurt guess those items are far more dangerous] is legal in Pa. but MERELY requires a permit.Merely is also defined as simply. Perhaps my Honorable state reps. would have been more honest to says IF the farmers go thru the ordeal of obatining the free permit and what would that cost be? Then they would be ALLOWED to sell raw milk ONLY. This is all nonsense.
What if the state said to my local bank you merely obtain a permit and we will allow you to cash checks and maintain saving accounts for your customers, but you cannot issue any car loans, or any home loans .
Do our farmers labor under a double standard that is not applied to any other business?
OH I forgot it all about food safety is it not?
I apologize for the bit of snark perpetrated on C2. For someone so offended at being referred to as a "lab tech" (in a previous post), she could certainly learn a thing or two from one. She asked if goat milk could harbor E. coli. If you look, you can find E. coli in any milk anywhere, whether it be pasteurized, unpasteurized, prairie dog, or hippopotamus.It's a really good growth medium.
Other than that, I could appreciate Mr. Bittman's characterization of government officials in the clip: either decieiful or well-intentioned and stupid. I'm willing to accept some middle ground, but so far I haven't seen any.
I figured that was directed at me and it was deserved. Not the part about goat milk--someone was emphasizing cow milk and I wanted to know if they saw a difference (not meant to imply that goats would not be able to harbor E. coli or other foodborne pathogens). It was a dumb question.
Regarding the lab tech comment, I became wrapped up in some digs by another poster and was totally out of line following her lead and insulting lab techs. My sincerest apologies to any and all lab techs out there! Lesson learned (avoid responding to nasty personal comments with more nastiness).
C2
Pasteurized milk is a highly processed food.
First the butterfat is measured. (Jersey milk is the richest and is usually around 5%. Holsteins produce more milk but have a lower butterfat content.) Farmers are paid more for higher fat content and penalized for less.
Once the butterfat content is determined it gets separated from the milk. It is then added back in 1%, 2%, and 3.5% (aka "whole" milk). This process is known as standardization. "Whole" milk used to be 4% but corporate greed has been skimming it off. It may even be as low as 3.25% now.
After standardization comes pasteurization or heat treatment. Before homogenization, or when the butterfat gets evenly dispersed, bactofugtion must occur. Bactofugaion is the centrifugal process used to remove the leukocytes (dead bacteria), spores, and dirt particles from the milk. For some of the milk filters I've seen from Grade A commercial dairies, this step is necessary. Without it a gray sludge would settle even after homogenization. Not too appetizing in the bottom of your glass.
I have to agree with C2.
Who and/or what organization is behind promoting the raw milk movement in the U.S? Who is pushing for all 50 states to legalize the sale of raw milk?
The Real Milk website promotes drinking raw milk for infants and children and encourages small farmers to get into the business of selling raw milk because it can help supplement their farms’ income. Where on this website is the “do’s and don’ts” information for new raw milk farmers? Where is there educational information about pathogens and possible illnesses they could cause? Where is there information about “things to be aware of” for first time raw milk drinkers—especially children?
The irony about the group the blogs on the Complete Patient—they are anti factory farmed meat, produce and dairy because these products contribute to America’s health problems. However, the logic they use regarding pathogens in raw milk is—“look at all the other foods that have pathogens”…the foods that they won’t eat. But for some reason, raw milk gets a “pass” for pathogens. “All food carries a risk”—yeah, the food from factory farms and processed foods that you don’t promote eating.
Here’s some very specific data from the Dee Creek December 2005 Ecoli 0157:H7 outbreak:
1. 18 people became ill (median age 9 years old)
2. 5 patients (age 1 -13) were hospitalized
3. 4 of the 5 patients who were hospitalized developed HUS
4. Of the 140 person who reported consuming raw milk from the farm during the time period of the outbreak, only 18 became ill
5. E.coli 0157;H7 was isolated from raw milk samples obtained from the farm and one shareholder. No E.coli 0157:H7 was isolated from stool samples of any of the farm’s five cows (makes a huge argument for why they didn’t find the matching fingerprint of Ecoli in the cows during the OPDC linked outbreak—needle in the haystack)
6. Dee Creek was an unlicensed cow-share program
Is this what people in the raw milk movement want to see happen? Farmer’s that decide to go into the raw milk business need to be educated and so do their customers. Why doesn’t the Real Milk website provide this educational information?
"The irony about the group the blogs on the Complete Patient—they are anti factory farmed meat, produce and dairy because these products contribute to America’s health problems. However, the logic they use regarding pathogens in raw milk is—“look at all the other foods that have pathogens”…the foods that they won’t eat. But for some reason, raw milk gets a “pass” for pathogens."
You came to this conclusion how? Do quote where you got "raw milk gets a “pass” for pathogens." I don't recall reading anything like that.
"Is this what people in the raw milk movement want to see happen? Farmer’s that decide to go into the raw milk business need to be educated and so do their customers."
Where did you read that anyone on this blog wanted anyone to become ill? I believe education has been promoted on this blog. Numerous sites/links have been posted for education.
"Why doesn’t the Real Milk website provide this educational information?"
Why doesn't the govt entities provide the correct and unbiased information?
http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_safety.html
http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm
http://www.newfarm.org/features/2007/0607/rawmilk/bowman.shtml
http://www.nofamass.org/programs/organicdairy/pdfs/Raw%20Milk%20Use%20and%20Safety%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/USOMilk/Chapter15.pdf
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafety/educators/index.cfm?parent=2
On my 1 hour drive to obtain my life saving raw dairy from farms that have their clean cows grazing in grass covered fields, I also drive past about 6 disgusting filthy "LICENSED" milk producers. The poor pathic cows stand in hoof deep black wet manure and urine muck year round and its splattered over their bodies. These cows never ever taste one blade of grass for in their 100 foot square prison NOTHING grows on the ground not even one weed, but maybe "bacteria". Its all about food safety??? One does not need a test tube and a lab but just a pair of eyes and a little common sense to see somthing is wrong with this picture.
My family and I have suffered many health problems for many years eating the "stuff" licensed and approved that are produced by factory farms, now after dining on real food from small farms for 3 years most of our health problems are nearly gone.
If people want to eat and drink the industrial products fine, but please give me the freedom of choise to be so foolish to consume raw dairy produced from the clean cows grazing in the grass covered fields.
"Caveat emptor" is a very important phrase to know whether your purchasing a house, raw milk or stock. As long as the seller doesn't make any false claims, it is up to you to perform due diligence, especially if you are a parent. There is nothing uniquely dangerous about raw milk and the risks are in no way hidden.
C2,
The Raw Milk Cheese Association is working to develop protocols and an HACCP plan for members to post on its website. Perhaps you would like to advise?
Thank you for listing the other resources, but I was asking questions specifically about the Real Milk website. This website was founded by the Weston A. Price foundation.
Don't you think an organization that promotes the use of raw milk in infant formula should have an ethical responsibility to provide some factual information about pathogens/illness that could happen if the raw milk was contaminated? Shouldn't both the pros and cons be presented.
We're talking children's lives here. Although I know the "pinprick" of a number in the last few years with Ecoli 0157:H7 and raw milk (around 25; 6 HUS) shouldn't really bother anyone. If other foods can become contaminated and make children ill, what's the big deal about raw milk?
If I send, as a gift, not selling, a container of my raw milk Feta to someone in another state who is craving my Feta, have I violated the FDA's "no raw dairy across state lines" rule?
Pure gift. No sale. Not a sample to encourage later sales. Gift...period.
Bob
Our yonger friends and their children are seemingly sick every few weeks, our older friends are making endless trips to different MDs. They think we are WACKOs for consuming raw dairy. One elderly lady friend loves sauerkrout but will not even taste ours because she knows the whey is from raw milk.
We are examples of the benefits that are derived from consuming real food. Saddly our friends young and old are suffering from fear and ignorance of the truth, but reaping the rewards of toxic foodless food.
What is the motive behind the ruthless efforts to stamp out raw dairy and destroy small family farmers in the process?
Several have mentioned here that a person's starting point in this debate is very significant. You may have been one of them. I think it was C2 that suggested that raw milk supporters are from a different planet.
Well, I am one of those aliens. But it's critically important to note that my alien status is conferred as a result of a revolution in food production that occupies just a tiny sliver of human history--the era we're in now, of course.
Today the average Joe has no difficulty defining an industrially processed "fruit bar" (with a mile-long list of ingredients more appropriate for a chemistry lab than a grocery store) as breakfast. Soy formula, despite the facts that it contains phytoestrogens and is a relatively poor quality protein (as compared to milk protein) is today considered appropriate food for infants. Where are the warnings? Where is the outrage? Nowhere, because we are culturally and educationally as homogenized as processed milk. We have no doubts that our modern foods are anything but appropriate because that is all we know. That's the starting point in the raw milk debate for many people.
But the "live food" crowd (of which I am one) sees things differently. We START the debate with a healthy distrust of industrial food, and rightfully wonder why natural foods that have healthfully supported mankind for many thousands of years, are now deemed unsafe and dangerous, while industrial foods get a free pass despite being strongly implicated in our newly epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, degenerative diseases, emotional diseases, obesity, allergies, and on and on and on.
Accusing raw milk drinkers of promoting an unsafe food is, from that very reasonable perspective, narrow minded, short sighted, and sad.