As strong as the stench coming from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture was yesterday in Mark Nolt’s trial, it actually intensified today, in a tiny Elizabethtown courtroom, about 50 miles down the road, where Glen Wise went on trial for selling raw dairy products without a permit.
So unpleasant was the odor that even the judge of the Magisterial District Court in Elizabethtown, Jayne Duncan–sitting in front of engraved copies of the Declaration of Independence and the first page of the U.S. Constitution, and hearing arguments from a farmer without a lawyer—got enough of a whiff that she dismissed two of the three citations against Glen, and reduced the fine on the third from a possible $300 to $50. She labeled the PDA’s approach in handling its investigation of Glen “unfair” by failing to notify him in a timely manner of its undercover purchases of dairy products.
But implicit in her action was a condemnation of the PDA’s entire entrapment approach in going after Glen.
Like yesterday, the PDA sent its chief attorney, Brook Deur, to prosecute the case against Glen, who, like Mark yesterday, is a Mennonite and chose not to have legal representation. (Mennonites also don’t like to have their faces photographed, so the photo above of Glen and supporters is taken from the back.) With Deur was the PDA’s main witness, Joe Goetz, a food sanitarian with the agency’s Bureau of Food Safety for the last two-and-a-half years, and its undercover officer of the day. Like Tony Russo yesterday, Goetz painted a picture of an employee forced into distasteful actions, except his assignment was even more questionable than that described yesterday in the Mark Nolt case.
At first, it sounded like standard practice. “I was directed by my supervisor to make a purchase of raw milk and kefir” from Glen Wise, Goetz stated. He described how he went to the Wises’ Shady Acres Dairy Farm on three occasions–Nov. 14, Jan. 8, and March 8—each time purchasing half a gallon of raw milk and a quart of kefir.
But when it came time for cross examination, Glen was ready. “Did you see the sign on the refrigerator, “Dairy products for sale to CARE members only?”
Goetz said, “Honestly, I did not pay attention to any signs.”
But it got worse. “Are you a CARE member?”
“Yes.”
“So you did sign a CARE contract?”
“Yes”
“Did you read that contract?”
“Yes”
When Deur objected that Goetz was being asked to interpret the law, the judge intervened. “What was the purpose of the contract?”
“I was asked to sign the contract by my supervisor,” Goetz answered.
The judge followed up: “What did you expect that the contract provided?”
Goetz said he couldn’t recall.
The point here is very important, though. The CARE membership agreement (CARE is the Communities’ Alliance for Responsible Eco-Farming and requires all members to pay a $20 annual membership fee) states at the start, in bold, all caps:
“All CARE MEMBERS MUST INITIAL AND CERTIFY, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY WITH THE INTENT TO BE LEGALLY BOUND TO THE FOLLOWING…”
There follow eleven clauses that must be initialed indicating, for example, that the member isn’t aware of any medical conditions that would prevent him or her from consuming raw dairy and supports CARE’s mission statement. However, the first clause in the list states: “Whereas, that HE/SHE is not acting under color of law to entrap, hurt, prosecute, or otherwise trespass/and/or and gather information for any agency, corporation, person or other entity to in any way negatively affect the CARE Alliance/Association, its board of directors, members or its purpose.”
Judge Duncan hadn’t seen the CARE contract in advance, but she made copies of it during a recess in the proceedings.
In her ruling, Judge Duncan said that Glen’s argument that the CARE contract is a private arrangement between the farmer and the consumer, and thus outside the state’s raw-milk permitting requirements, “is outside the scope of this court’s authority.” In effect, she was leaving the matter to the Common Pleas Court, where Glen intends to appeal the single citation he was found guilty on.
Afterwards, there was general satisfaction in Glen’s camp. Bill Reil, a local constitutional law expert who advised Glen and sat with him at the defendants’ table, said, “We walked out of there with one citation instead of three. That was the best we could have hoped for.”
Mark Nolt, who was among the 40 or so supporters, was also impressed. “We lost the battle, but we’re winning the war.”
The presence of a written contract may have provided Glen Wise with a case that will be easier for a judge to relate to than it has been in the Mark Nolt case.
Friday, June 23, 2000
Last modified at 2:27 a.m. on Friday, June 23, 2000
2000 – The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
Meat inspectors shot to death at California sausage factory
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/062300/nat_062300040.shtml
SAN LEANDRO, Calif. {AP} A sausage factory owner who had complained he was being harassed by the government over health violations allegedly shot and killed three meat inspectors who had come to examine the plant.
Sausage king dies in his cell on Death Row
Cause of death not known for man who murdered 3
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/28/BAGVEGDULP1.DTL
December 28, 2005
The self-proclaimed San Leandro sausage king, sentenced to death in February for murdering three meat inspectors during a 2000 rampage, was found dead early Tuesday on Death Row at San Quentin Prison.
Will a "private arrangement" keep the wolves at bay?
We have to differentiate between bureaucrats who really serve the people, from those who enter ‘public service’ with ulterior motives to bleed us and control us, in service to their corporate masters. Why wouldn’t we appreciate the service of Russo and Goetz to protect us from harm by doing their official duties to test food products?
I’d think it would be up to CARE to protect their contract and pursue this. This would be a good way to help expose the vendetta against farmers, assuming broader publicity results, exposing the PDA’s (and other state departments of agriculture) abusive co-optation of a government agency, using the taxpayers’ money to provide a free service to the corporate agenda against independent farmers.
Apparently no one has yet fallen ill from consuming the products of Mark Nolt or Glen Wise. It would make more sense for the PDA to go after them after they have caused harm. Merely to attempt to put them out of business for ….. what, exactly? … threatening market share of the pasteurized milk lobby? It is the urgency of the PDA and the other states, right now, in aggressively pursuing this national effort against raw milk (financed by the taxpayers) that is the clue to the organized conspiracy. It must be that the public demand for raw dairy products is increasing so much that they feel an urgency to nip awareness of the benefits of sustainably-produced natural food in the bud ASAP.
Is it possible that FOIA requests of correspondence between various folk such as Dennis Wolf and Bill Chirdon and the dairy lobby might expose the conspiracy?
Thanks, David.
These cases provide clear evidence of corporate takeover of state departments of agriculture by agribusiness.
C2
We should keep in mind that the "processed stuff" is not the result of a free market. Industrial agriculture, including industrialized milk production, sits on a foundation of tax and other artificial incentives, regulation, cost shifting, revenue shifting, and myriad power brokering to control those factors. That’s YOUR money, subsidizing a product ( a PRODUCT!) that you don’t necessarily want.
I support dismantling of the government and other artificial incentives that supports the industrial agriculture "structure"–the system of robbing Peter to pay Cargill. If industrial ag can survive without that, more power to them, and if they do, I’ll eat my hat and even tell them I’m sorry for doubting.
I agree with Don that this is all about choice. But that includes the freedom to choose my own charities.
Why is this specific product singled out to be the Bogeyman? Why is the testing and regulation of an ages-old substance so inconsistent and controversial? Miguel had the answer when he said that dairy farmers either had to stay "on the plantation" or be eliminated. Ninety-nine percent of market share just isn’t good enough for rapacious corporations. They want it all. Even scarier for them is the specter of losing market share. That is why someone who worked for Dean Foods and Hershey Foods Corporation is considered qualified to be a state dairy inspector. I doubt if his former positions had much to do with dairy science.
Unpasteurized milk hasn’t killed any more people than hamburger or eggs, so there’s no rational public health reason for the inordinate level of scrutiny it receives. Follow the money and you’ll see that Miguel is right.
Read Ron Schmid’s The Untold Story of Milk for a pretty good answer to your question. The history points the finger at blind good intentions, bad medical philosophy, and of course, money. Gradually, the let’s do good mentality and the government-medical-money machinery took on a life of its own, extending and morphing the rules, but always lurking underneath the mess are the same reasons we got ourselves into trouble in the first place.
I have an intelligent, sensitive, and raw milk-drinking friend who goes absolutely apoplectic at our medical insurance problems. He believes that medical care is a human right, and ought to be guaranteed by government, as in Life, Liberty, and an AMA doctor. He is, as you know, not alone.
Once we accept such statist means and ends, we cannot predict their endpoint. Mix the mega-state with mega-business, and there you have it. We become slaves to those in power.
Despite all our huffing and puffing about freedom and American ideals, we are first and foremost, it seems, a people eager to follow rules. We believe, or at least accept, what we are told. We are stupid enough, apparently, to follow rules over the edge of a cliff.
I have a copy of the book, but have not yet read it. I know that mandatory pasteurization of milk started with the best of intentions. I also know that most government officials are only trying to do their jobs.
I am not stupid enough to follow rules over a cliff, however, and I don’t think you are either. As I understand it, you milk a cow for your family’s dairy needs. This takes infrastructure in the form of pasture, fencing, and buildings. It also takes some basic knowledge of veterinary science and animal handling, so it isn’t as if you can go buy your home milking kit at Wal-mart and be in the dairy business within the week. It takes some intelligence and practical knowledge as well as a good deal of devotion.
Unpasteurized milk is a completely different entity than industrially-produced pasteurized milk. The current government dogma on unpasteurized milk is outdated and disappointingly inaccurate. You can’t simply take a decades-old template for pasteurized milk and expect it to apply to the unpasteurized version – it won’t work. Completely different standards for production and testing need to be developed and adopted. Producers of "raw" milk know this and have adapted, but the regulators are stuck in a rut. Even worse, they tend to look down their "educated" noses at farmers and insist that they are intervening for their own good.
Even knowledge that is considered fundamental changes. We all need to keep an open mind.
Gee, indeed, Milkfarmer. I read your post from this morning on the other page and thought the ship had warped into a high school facebook fight. Goofy.
Not so goofy (relating to above and your comment):
"Giving credence to unreasonable fear weakens one and strengthens the illusion."
There is fear–on both "sides"–especially the fear of seeing "the enemy" as anything more complex than gestapo, Judas, etc. Indeed, it is much easier to de-humanize the people that disagree instead of listening. Just my 2 cents.
Little Darth
This is an excellent question and since I seem to be the only government type participating right now, I’ll try to answer it.
"It’s curious that potentially dangerous foods such as kitfo (raw beef) and pufferfish (potential tetrodotoxin poisoning there) can be served in restaurants, and that raw chicken contaminated with Campylobacter, Salmonella, or other pathogens can be freely sold in grocery stores (even shipped across state lines!), but unpasteurized milk is totally taboo in much of the USA. One isn’t allowed to purchase this particular potentially contaminated product in a grocery store nor even procure it by private contract!"
In the simplest sense, foods are divided into different categories of risk. Raw beef or chicken are not banned despite huge outbreaks and recalls because the consumer can take steps to protect themselves: proper cooking and handling. However, the producers are expected to keep their product safe and some strict regulations are in place for some foods like ground beef in the US: zero tolerance for E. coli, for example. This is controversial even within public health circles.
Surveillance (testing) is used to screen for toxins in fish and shellfish. The products or "fishing areas" are banned when a risk is found.
The trickiest products are the "ready to eat" foods. These are foods that the consumer expects to be safe without any special precautions. Raw milk falls into this category along with raw vegetables, produce, and ready-to-eat packaged foods. Raw milk has been deemed by many to be inherently unsafe especially since it is possible to make it safe for the consumer (pasteurization)–a no brainer on the surface. Things get more complicated with produce, but much of the unpasteurized juices have been "banned" or restricted.
An interesting ready-to-eat food "ban" underway: packaged meals with raw chicken causing repeated outbreaks. The consumer should be able to read the package and cook it right, but they do not. So, the government may step in and require pre-cooking. I doubt the companies are very happy about that change being forced on them if it happens.
The examples go on and on…despite the passion about raw milk, it is a small thing (with big publicity) in the overall picture of food safety IMHO. For some in public health, the issue doesn’t seem very complicated at all: just pasteurize the product, what’s the problem?
I don’t know if that helps at all, but raw milk is not the only food that we worry about…probably not even close to being in the top 10: The desire is to keep it that way. The questions are how, espcially given the fact that things aren’t black and white anymore with raw milk (legally, socially, etc.).
How about irradiation?
Running for cover,
C2
With all the recalls, it appears to be the processing/producer/shipping that has contaminated the foods, not the consumers.
However, the producers are expected to keep their product safe and some strict regulations are in place for some foods like ground beef in the US: zero tolerance for E. coli, for example. This is controversial even within public health circles.
Indeed, appears the regulations arent strict enough for the food processors.
Raw milk has been deemed by many to be inherently unsafe especially since it is possible to make it safe for the consumer (pasteurization)–a no brainer on the surface.
Obviously pasteurization wasnt safe for those who died from the Listeria recently. How many died from raw milk recently?
The examples go on and on…despite the passion about raw milk, it is a small thing (with big publicity) in the overall picture of food safety IMHO. For some in public health, the issue doesn’t seem very complicated at all: just pasteurize the product, what’s the problem?
Whats the problem? If I want my milk boiled, I will do it. If the dairy farm produces milk so dirty that it needs to be boiled, then I dont want it. My grandmother worked in one of those chicken factories in the 60s and she refused to eat their chickens. From what I understand, theyve only gotten worse.
I don’t know if that helps at all, but raw milk is not the only food that we worry about…probably not even close to being in the top 10: The desire is to keep it that way. The questions are how, espcially given the fact that things aren’t black and white anymore with raw milk (legally, socially, etc.).
It amazes me that any govt entity would step in and spray viruses on lunch meats, allow dairy products that are contaminated from diseased animals, filthy farms, ditto for the meat producers yet they condemn all raw dairy. Why is that? It makes no sense. There is more contamination from other foods than raw dairy, yet they single out raw dairy, why is that? http://www.citizen.org/documents/beeftesting.pdf <~~If it causes adverse affects to animals fed it, what does it do to humans? Apparently the govt doesnt care. Whose pocket does the money flow into?
How about irradiation?
This is no better nor different than spraying foods with viruses, insecticides/herbicides, or gassing. I dont need nor want my greens washed in chlorine. I dont want my food contaminated with any of these. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafety/irradiation/
However, irradiation cannot be used with all foods. It causes undesirable flavor changes in dairy products, for example, and it causes tissue softening in some fruits, such as peaches and nectarines.
If safe milk is the goal, why not simply test the end product (and not with phony baloney barometers like coliform counts that don’t distinguish between beneficial and pathogenic organisms)? Instead, government dictates various process regulations, which just happen to fit well into the industrial model, but push out the small farm.
This looks a lot more like business control than safety control, especially when the conditions at the animal level in industrial ag operations are so dismally dirty and ugly.
I am curious about the procedure for testing food. I imagine it to be something like this: Take your sample and culture it on several different media. After incubation, look at it under a microscope to see what grows. I’d like to know what the standard plate test consists of and if visual confirmation via ‘scope is the standard procedure. Are there any other means of IDing the organism? Is PCR available in most labs or do you send out for it?
Thanks again for the insight.
" For some in public health, the issue doesn’t seem very complicated at all: just pasteurize the product, what’s the problem?"
I see you are still holding tightly to the "silver bullet".
When will you take off those blinders that keep you from seeing how important it is that the milk come from healthy animals?
You are a scientist.The following article is not difficult to understand and it is the result of the most recent research,while pasteurization is an ancient, outmoded process that fails completely to make the milk of diseased animals safe to drink.
please go to this website and read the whole article.
http://bacteriality.com/2008/05/05/prions/
this is just a small excerpt from the article.
"Aguzzi proceeded to separate sheep into two groups. One group had a chronic viral inflammatory condition called mastitis, while the other group did not. When the milk from both groups of sheep was examined, prions were only secreted in the milk of those sheep who had mastitis. In these cases, macrophages were also secreted in the milk, some or all of which were certainly infected by the Th1 pathogens. This solidified the hypothesis that inflammation of the mammary glands (which occurs in mastitis) is necessary if prions are to infect the mammary glands and end up in an animals milk.
A second study by the team examined the milk content of healthy cows that had been infected with the BSE prions that cause mad cow disease. Since the cows were healthy and did not suffer from any inflammatory conditions (they had been kept in what Aguzzi describes as five star hotels for cows), the BSE prions were not found in the milk of healthy cows, nor did the cows actually develop mad cow disease."
I haven’t given up hope for you yet.You have to be willing to examine what scientists have learned in the past 50 years about the actual effects of pasteurization.
1) Under what circumstances, and how often is pasteurized milk routinely or sporadically tested; and how often is that an end-stage product taken off the shelf? At what stages and at what temperatures is it tested?
2) Under what circumstances, and how often is raw milk routinely or sporadically tested; and how often is that end-stage product taken out of the farmer’s possession? At what stages and at what temperatures is it tested?
3) Are the answers to question 1 and 2 comparable according to scientific process? (Yes or No only)
4) When organisms such as camphylobacter, listeria, strep or staph of food poisoning significance and other organisms of food poisoning significance are introduced to both raw and pasteurized milk both at room temperature and chilled to recommended levels, what are their comparable levels at 1 hour, 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours and 72 hours?
5) How many cases of food poisoning have there been by pasteurized milk in the past 10 years according to the following sources: CDC, AMA, USDA, FDA or any other group, organization or governmental agency or college who has tested pasteurized milk? And by what organisms: a) suspected and b) proven.
6) Apply question 5 to raw milk.
7) Adjusted for quantity, statistically speaking, which has caused more food poisoning percentage per amount consumed?
Before I hear another argument on legality or food safety, I want the answers to these questions all on the same document, please. And tell me where that document is. Thank you.
Gwen
Assuming that all of the milk available to consumers comes from factory farms,we are left with the choice: Would you prefer to die quickly from an acute bout of disease or would you rather linger on but suffer from several chronic diseases.Pasteurization will keep us alive longer but it will also certainly infect us with a great many debilitating chronic diseases.Most people ,given this choice, would say wait,what other options do I have?
I can think of two.Avoid all dairy products or find a source of milk from an animal that you are sure is a healthy animal.
Many public health officials and other officials have already accepted the inevitable disapearance of small scale farming.Many are actively working to eliminate small farms.I often hear them say we can’t stop progress,we just have to adjust to it.For those people who don’t want to give up dairy products there is only one safe choice.
Sylvia
With all the recalls, it appears to be the processing/producer/shipping that has contaminated the foods, not the consumers.
The assumption is that raw meat, poultry, eggs, and fish are not sterile when you buy them at the store–they may contain pathogens–consumers need to take precautions. See FightBac: http://www.fightbac.org/
But, the producersbig or smallshould do more to keep their products as clean as technologically possible (no argument that some companies are not doing this very well). The reasons some are not doing it well (including the "big agri") are not as simple as just feeding grass to cows and treating them well. Good diet, a clean environment, and animal welfare are critical to food safety. But, the pathogens are smart (they evolve and survive new conditions): they will show-up in the feces and sometimes milk of even the happiest and healthiest of cows.
Obviously pasteurization wasnt safe for those who died from the Listeria recently. How many died from raw milk recently?
Pasteurization worked fine (from what Ive read) and the milk would have been safe if consumed right after pasteurization. Something went wrong later in the process that allowed Listeria to enter the packaged milk. The failure wasnt pasteurization, but the downstream process. That doesnt make it any less painful for the farmer and the families that were devastated by the outbreak, but blaming pasteurization does not help prevent this from occurring again. I am sure raw milk producers would want to know if Listeria was lurking around and a procedure in their protocol allowed it to enter their bottles before it went to Farmers Market. The peanut butter Salmonella story was similarthe peanuts or their processing were not the problem, but sanitation issues in the plant resulted in contaminated jars.
Kirsten
I am curious about the procedure for testing food.
This is the standard food testing manual for the US (FDA regulated foods which includes milk): http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-toc.html
IMHO it is terrible that so little effort has been put into better food testing methods in the US. Its not the fault of the lab tech running the test or the regulator responding to a result. Also, its better than nothing (or relying on certain shady private company tests). There has been little motivation (money) to make the tests better. Maybe the raw milk community would like to help fund some studies to develop the best and most reliable pathogen tests for raw milk.
I see you are still holding tightly to the "silver bullet".
Yes and no. I was speaking about the general point of view in public health there.
Miguel
More later.
First, thank you for civility, and persistence. Now…
Regarding this: "The assumption is that raw meat, poultry, eggs, and fish are not sterile when you buy them at the store–they may contain pathogens–consumers need to take precautions."
The raw milk movement is driven partly (mostly?) by disagreement with the notion that "sterile" is better. Many believe (myself included) that the kill-the-bugs mentality in medicine, which drives aspects of the food safety regulatory machine, has caused untold damage to people. (This topic is too big for a thick book, but suffice it say here that our shift to processed and other "dead" foods is associated with myriad skyrocketing diseases.) From that perspective, pastuerization never "worked fine". From that perspective, our kill-the-bugs public health safety measures may have been the worst public health boondoggle in history.
And regarding this: "The reasons some [producers] are not [keeping their products as clean as possible] (including the "big agri") are not as simple as just feeding grass to cows and treating them well. Good diet, a clean environment, and animal welfare are critical to food safety. But, the pathogens are smart (they evolve and survive new conditions): they will show-up in the feces and sometimes milk of even the happiest and healthiest of cows."
Recall please that the infamously pathogenic e coli O157:H7 arose in feedlot cattle. The best explanation we have for its appearance is the alteration of rumen pH secondary to the feeding cattle not their natural diet, but what is cheaply available and produces the greatest weight gain in the shortest time (read "corn"). This pathogen was simply not a problem when cows were treated according to natural prinicples. There is clearly reson to believe that clean, healthy, happy cows are FAR more important than the current government-medical-agricultural giants allow. That triumvirate, in fact, seem bent on ignoring natural husbandry.
And regarding your comment that government testing may be flawed (my paraphrasing) but is better than relying on "certain shady private company tests".
There is more than enough evidence that the government tests are shady. Previous documentation of that has appeared on this blog and elsewhere.
And fianlly:
Kirsten is right. I milk a family cow. That is likely why I can remain relatively calm when discussing government and business interference with the raw milk supply. I have my own. Folks like Don go nuts because he has no other options. In other circumstances I would be right there with him.
Thanks–not sure if this persistence is welcome, or just a distraction as someone said (if so, I apologize, and moreso, sorry for anything said that seemed uncivil). I had a thought to write an article about this experience talking to the raw milk community….something that explores the fundamental differences in the interpretation of the science and tries to balance both sides (even where I personally disagree). After all this discussion, I must admit a lack of concern about you selling your one cow’s milk (what’s her name?), or even taking some of Bob’s goal cheese across a state line if I went to visit. Dealing with safety or other problems on such a small scale seems like an issue for the local government, not the state or feds. Yes the large scale distribution and marketing of raw dairy still causes me concern. The reasons were covered elsewhere in my (maybe too many) posts.
Just one significant disagreement with what you said. "Recall please that the infamously pathogenic e coli O157:H7 arose in feedlot cattle…" The science does not support this conclusion or the part about feed. Lots of controversy and unknowns (could be a book like you say), just wanted to point out the way E. coli O157 works in the cow is not that simple if you dig deeper into the peer-reviewed research.
Kindly,
C2
C2, the processing/producer/shipping gets away with selling contaminated foods and the govt blames the public for not taking more care? There is something wrong with that picture.
As for those who died from the Listeria recently, I am aware that it was in the processing/post processing phase that the contamination occured. Pasteurization did not help prevent those from becoming ill or dieing.
When was the last time someone died from consuming raw dairy in the US? And I am not counting illegally brought in dairy from other countries.
"Maybe the raw milk community would like to help fund some studies to develop the best and most reliable pathogen tests for raw milk."
Since the govt feels so strongly about it, they should fund it 100%. I have no problem consuming Claravale or OP dairy products.
Gwen’s questions are interesting and take some time to explore. Your other 2 points are the same and we do not disagree (we misunderstand?).
"the processing/producer/shipping gets away with selling contaminated foods and the govt blames the public for not taking more care?"
At least we know that if the government doesn’t care, MarlerClark does and will sue them:
http://www.ecoliblog.com/2008/05/articles/e-coli-legal-cases/utah-e-coli-victims-sue-wendys-as-its-consumed-by-triarc/
Since you bring up OP,..I looked at the E. coli and Campylobacter reports again (http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/organic-pastures-where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire/) and have little doubt that dairy products coming from that dairy (or brought in to that dairy from another raw milk dairy) caused those illnesses.
Those outbreaks are blips on the food safety radar: no deaths–but, what a sad day when an industry judges their food safety by the number of deaths they caused,
I have ignored you (with some guilt) because I do not believe that we can communicate. But, I am going to break down and respond because it does seem rude since you addressed me specifically.
"Assuming that all of the milk available to consumers comes from factory farms,we are left with the choice: Would you prefer to die quickly from an acute bout of disease or would you rather linger on but suffer from several chronic diseases."
I looked at your links concerning L forms of bacteria, and the viruses (I remember when stealth viruses were popular). Here’s the situation: the sites you are following reject the most basic principles of science (like the "bacteriality" link). I cannot have a discussion if you reject Koch’s postulates–revised to incorporate molecular biology and new findings in science. There is never a problem in science to question–indeed, that is the whole point of science. But there must be ground rules that are different from the arts, creativity, and politics.
Without intending to be flippant or dissmissive–this is reality: information you sent about the l-forms and viruses makes an excellent story for an episode of the x-files. They take pieces of real, peer-reviewd science (especially the parts that are most mysterious to scientists) and craft a story around these questions to cause fear about health and government conspiracies.
We have enough real problems to create ones that are not based in sound science. If there was credibility to these claims, at least a few papers could be found in peer reviewed journals, not just internet sites…
I really was not going to go there, but you are persistent too.
Take care,
C2
Curious, didn’t Mark say that he would not "out source" anymore? Are you saying that OP outsourced and got something other than what he thought he was getting? I wasn’t there, so I don’t know the details. I would hope that any issues will be lessons learned and he will strive to be upfront and ensure the safety of his product (I say issues as I dont know any of the details involved with the outsourcing of the cream nor do I know of the dairy where he got it from). I feel his milk is much safer and healthier than the processed factory farm dairy. Red flags? There are many red flags and it is up to the consumer to make their own informed choices as to what they wish to consume. When you buy products at the store, how do know the seller/producer is telling the truth about the item?
C2, we can agree to disagree that OP dairy products caused those illnesses. Linked, does not make one guilty especially when the strains were different. Guess they need a scapegoat. Perhaps fingering OP was to take the heat off the sloppy investigation on the spinach? Well never know for sure. It is a dead issue.
peer-reviewd science Is this in the same category as the drug trials?
I guess your answer was noit did not raise a red flag for you. Or if it did, youll take your chances because its not any worse than buying milk from a processed factory farm dairy. Somehow I assumed that people had higher expectations than that when purchasing raw milk and/or raw milk products.
During the timeframe of the scapegoat outbreak, colostrum was outsourced, not cream.
"C2, we can agree to disagree that OP dairy products caused those illnesses. Linked, does not make one guilty especially when the strains were different"
All of the DNA fingerprints were the same for E. coli in the report. The cattle fingerprints were different–so what, they were looking for a needle in a haystack. The other report on Campylobacter has DNA fingerprints from the cows and the humans that match. I’m convinced there is a problem out there.
Curious is very worried about grass fed–I am less concerned about this point because any cow can carry pathogens like E. coli O157, but maybe curious’ point is that if the farmer is not honest about their feed, they also do not care about safety. Again, if the motivation is profit or religion (spreading the word of raw milk), it doesn’t take a lot of degrees to figure out this may be a disaster in the making.
Indeed, factory farms nor the govt are honest about what they feed and inject into the animals. No, I don’t believe they care about safety.
Curious, There are many red flags and it is up to the consumer to make their own informed choices as to what they wish to consume.
For an example: if you are diagnosed with a disease, don’t you research it? Any medications that are dispensed, don’t you research those too; effects/side effects? Long term effects? I would hope so, otherwise, you would not be an informed consumer. You weigh your options and then determine your course of action…Some people just accept what is told, pop the pills and haven’t a clue as to what is going on. That is an un-informed consumer.
I will take my chances with OP or Claravale dairies as I believe they are safer and healthier than the factory dairies. I trust them over the factory farms and the govt.
"higher expectations" I am not sure what you are implying? Please elaborate. Do you feel the same of those who consume proccessed products? (Products with added chemicals/pesticides/herbicides/GM) Or perhaps the factory farm’s products? Fast foods?
Consumption of products is a choice. If you wish to eat those salad greens that have been washed in chlorine or the lunch meat sprayed with viruses, do enjoy.
Perhaps unpasteurized milk should be placed in this category as well, since many consumers drink it specifically for its "live" properties, i.e. probiotic organisms, and not simply as a source of macronutrients as in the case of mass-produced milk. Drug store shelves are filled with all kinds of probiotic preparations designated as nutritional supplements.
In addition, consumers of "raw" milk have generally taken some time to educate themselves as to the benefits and dangers of this product. They are not the same consumers that walk into a mini mart and grab a gallon off the shelf for the week-end.
There is a very real distinction between the two products. Perhaps if unpasteurized milk was reclassified as a nutritional supplement it would save a lot of headaches for regulators and farmers both.
One question I have asked of people who want unpasteurized milk is,Why?.A surprising number of people say…I have this chronic health problem and my doctor thinks it might be an allergy to milk.I stopped drinking milk and I noticed a real improvement.But I miss dairy products in my diet so I want to see if unpasteurized dairy products give me an allergic reaction.In most cases they don’t.
Why?
The symptoms these people have are all inflammatory reactions to pasteurized dairy products.Why do pasteurized dairy products cause these reactions when unpasteurized dairy products do not?
Looking for answers,I found the information on stealth pathogens,L-form bacteria and mycoplasmas.The most appealing aspect of this approach is that it tries to understand the cause of disease and to remedy the cause rather than just treat the symptoms.
What is the cause of disease?This is where Koch’s postulates come in.To him microorganisms were the cause of disease.The presence of certain bacteria caused disease.The goal is to identify and learn how to kill each one of these "pathogens".
But for some of us reality is that microbes always occur in communities and that balance is what insures health.To achieve a healthy balanced community of microbes we need to control the PH,salinity,mineral and nutrient content etc. of our bodies.We can do this by being careful about what we eat.We are constantly adding ,to our community of microbes, the bacteria that is in and on the food we eat.It is our internal "terrain" That determines which bacteria will predominate.Just as the conditions in the lab are controlled to culture one type of bacteria and suppress the others.
There is something about a PHD that wants to dismiss these "far out" ideas.My own daughter is just about done with her PHD,something to do with genetics and microbiology.We have an ongoing discussion about this same topic.I can’t change her mind,but I like to think that I might plant the seed of an idea in her mind and someday it might begin to grow.Above all I hope she can keep an open mind in an environment that tends to ridicule ideas that aren’t published in peer reviewed journals.
Syliva, raw milk can be contaminated with pathogen(s) if safety protocols are not taken seriously. It appears that many raw milk drinkers on this blog have high expectations of their raw milk farmer. Even the raw milk dairy farmers themselves have voiced how important it is to know and trust your farmer. That statement alone suggests customers have a very high expectation of their raw dairy farmers integrity and it appears to be an integral aspect of how one determines who to purchase their raw milk from.
As for the remainder of your statement (high expectations for the producers of processed products), Im lost at how a comparison can be made between the two entities (raw milk dairy farmers and our large cooperate food supply). The only expectation I have of the second category is that if you consume it long enough, it will kill you.
Below are quotes taken off of Organic Pastures website:
Nature’s Health is Your Health
At OPDC the vigor of each cow is a high priority. Our individually named cows are never given antibiotics, hormones, or GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Only organic green pasture and approved naturopathic methods are used to feed and care for the cows. Preventative, nature-based healthcare keeps the herd healthy all year.
5. Are organic and raw the same thing?
No. "Organic" is a set of environmentally sustainable growing and production practices that are now certified and regulated by the USDA. Raw is the naturally occurring, unprocessed and uncooked state of any food. All organic milk starts out with the organic cow and all organic cows make raw milk. Nearly all dairies take their milk to a creamery that processes that milk using pasteurization methods. The resulting organic products are not raw and living, but rather they are "killed and dead." In addition, not all organic dairies follow the USDA organic requirements, which requires access to pasture for their cows. OPDC provides pasture 100% of the time. OPDC is the only organic pasture land farm in North America that does not pasteurize (heat treat to extend shelf life and kill bacteria) its products. Organic means diversity of life and soil. What a shame it is that "living, life-bringing raw milk" from all over the country ends up being processed into very dead Ultra High Temperature (UHT is 282 degrees – not the common HTST 161 degree common pasteurization: for extra long shelf life); so-called organic milk products. It truly exploits the word organic. Again, and it really must be restated for emphasis, organic means soil and the diversity of living life. How can something so dead be considered natural or organic? Only living milk brings life.
Mobilized For the Raw Revolution!
Organic Pastures Dairy founder Mark McAfee invented and built North Americas first and only grade A state-inspected mobile dairy barn. Our cows graze on green pastures all year longwithout ever being coaxed and herded to a barn.
With a mobile milk barn, cows:
Move about as they would in nature
Graze on organic green pasture all year long, for the most nutrient rich milk
Are never required to return to manure-filled pens for milking
The mobile milk barn also keeps our dairy pristine, with:
No waste lagoons to contaminate underground water
No steel fences or concrete pathways that may injure cows
Know your farmer.trust your farmer.when products are outsourced and customers consume them without knowing these fine details, they are being deceived. All the above statements mean nothing because the product that is being consumed is NOT from OPDC.
Sylvia, as you often espouse on this blogits all about choice. So Ive come to the conclusion that you are not alarmed about outsourced products coming from this dairy with the OP label and its your choice to continue to consume them. The problem other customers may have is they didnt get to make a choice about what they were consuming for their families. They were not informed about the outsourcing until after the fact. In the case of the colostrum, it was 1 years after the fact. Some people might take issue with this. Trust your farmer?????????
So now the choice is to continue purchasing OP products or go to without raw milk diary products. Youve made the first choice. Integrity is not a big issue for you.
"There is something about a PHD that wants to dismiss these "far out" ideas.My own daughter is just about done with her PHD,something to do with genetics and microbiology."
Well, looks like I wrote nothing you haven’t heard before at home. It would be interesting to sit in on a conversation between you and your microbiologist/geneticist daughter!
"C2 suggests that, The goal is to identify and learn how to kill each one of these pathogens".
That comment wasn’t mine. The goal is to promote food safety, which may involve killing pathogens (at least down to a safe level–below the infectious dose); keeping pathogens out of the food supply to begin with is a better goal. I agree that food shouldn’t be sterile, but disagree strongly that people should be "immunized" against dangerous pathogens by allowing them in our food supply so people can be "exposed." I know not everyone is suggesting that, but I have seen it said or implied on this blog. Allowing pathogens (or even promoting pathogens through high coliform counts) is not fair to the individuals who do not become naturally immiunized (or have natural resistance), especially the children who go on to develop severe illness with permanent damages or death.
I don’t think drinking contaminated milk is a good way to boost my immunity against Campylobacter, Salmonella, E. coli or L. monocytogenes, but there are a great many other bacteria in unpasteurized milk that have a very beneficial effect on our bodies.
A quote from Pathophilia blog: "I was nothing, nowhere, nobody, until I got to know my intestinal flora."
There’s quite a bit of real estate in the digestive tract. Even though Hippocrates understood that food is powerful medicine, we are just beginning to understand the ramifications of what and how we eat.
E. coli H7:O157 may not have originated in a feed lot, but as this abstract from Cornell indicates, grain feeding cattle poses an E. coli infection risk to humans.
Potential effect of cattle diets on the transmission of pathogenic Escherichia coli to humans
a Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Abstract
Grain feeding seems to promote the growth and acid resistance of Escherichia coli in fattening beef cattle, and acid-resistant E. coli are more likely to survive the human gastric stomach. When cattle were fed hay for only five days, the number and acid resistance of E. coli decreased dramatically.
Thanks for the BAM link.
All of my children were raised on unpasteurized milk.Even the one who chose to study microbiology and genetics understands that healthy cows make healthy milk and that pasteurization is ,at best, not necessary when the cows are healthy and the milk is handled carefully.Maybe she would be able to communicate with you better than I can.
Any food can be contaminated with pathogens if safety protocols are not taken. Of course I expect those who I purchase anything from to be honest. Unfortunately in reality that is not always the case. It helps to be an informed consumer.
when products are outsourced and customers consume them without knowing these fine details, they are being deceived Yes, this is true. Just look at the deception in the stores; most people have no clue what is on or in the food, etc. Deception at its best.
Yes it is my choice to continue to buy OP products, just as it is your choice not to. It is rather presumptuous of you to assume whether or not I am alarmed about out sourced products from OP or anywhere else. You have no idea who I have or have not spoken to in regards to any out sourcing. And you continue assuming about what issues I have. Passing judgments without complete facts doesnt bring correct conclusions.
Ive been trying to peg you down on an answer and you dance all around it. Above was your response before. And now below this is your response.
Now Sylvia says this [Yes it is my choice to continue to buy OP products, just as it is your choice not to. It is rather presumptuous of you to assume whether or not I am alarmed about out sourced products from OP or anywhere else. You have no idea who I have or have not spoken to in regards to any out sourcing. And you continue assuming about what issues I have. Passing judgments without complete facts doesnt bring correct conclusions.]
The answer I was looking for was yes or no about whether you were alarmed about OPDC products being outsourced. It appears you have a difficult time with a direct answer.
Then you should have stated what you wanted. Alarmed? NO, disappointed? Yes. Is there a reason you are being rude? I could say that apparently you have difficulty with comprehension. I am done responding with you.
You appear to be very loyal to OPDC. I admire loyalty in a person. Mark is lucky to have you as a loyal customer. Im sure you were quite disappointed to discover OP products had been outsourced. Thanks for the honest answer.
Nope, you don’t get off that easy, C2. You made the argument that safety was at the heart of the issue. If that is true, you should already have the answers to these questions up front. The USDA should have them listed on their website.
I’m a nurse, and little is done in the medical field where the purpose and theory behind it isn’t questioned. Otherwise you get eaten alive by your peers.
If this were a medical lawsuit, the USDA would have to pay every farmer they prosecuted 50 years retroactively, just for not even having done their research, even if in the end it turns out in their favor. They’re doing a pretty messy job, raiding farms and hiding their facts, if they even HAVE accurate facts.
I reckon on the pasteurized milk growing more e-coli than even pre-contaminated raw milk. And I’d figure under routine pasteurization techniques, on the gallon I take off the shelf having, say, 5 times as many growable pathogens in it under the same conditions as the milk I buy off a Grade A dairy farm of my choosing on any given day.
Who DOES foot the bill for an inappropriate law – excuse me, appointed agency personnel-inspired regulation? Should the people who passed it foot the research bill, or the people who want it disproven? If the people who want it disproven originally foot it, shouldn’t there be a provision that they get reimbursed by those who caused them so much grief?
Wouldn’t our tax dollars be better spent doing logical and meaningful research rather than prosecuting farmers? Honestly, the research most of these rules were based on is very outdated, and very incomplete. We know a lot more now about food safety than we ever did. With probiotics in the mix, there deserves to be a re-evaluation of the whole dairy regulation system.
Don’t insult the intelligence of the farmers and the people who want real food by calling it a safety issue, and not even backing yourself up with facts that make sense to them.
"Gwen’s questions are interesting and take some time to explore," is a pretty poor response.
Gwen
Claiming ‘Food safety’ is the only way they can win. It’s their only bat in the lineup.
The notion that peer review is needed to make something real is completely laughable. It is a convenient excuse for those ingrained in the system to reject offhand the alternative. Typical programmed response.
Raw milk is working. Today, and yesterday, individual farmers and their customers have created a large underground market, free from governmental interference. There is no plague, no pandemic of sickness (like they want you to fear). There is no problem here (except maybe market share for BigDairy). Tomorrow is a concern though, with jack-booted food safety police on the march.
I would be interested to know what you think about the safety of vaccines.The same information that leads me to suspect pasteurized milk as a source of inflammatory disease also leads me to believe that vaccinations are also a source of many diseases.
I know that Dr. Alan Cantwell is not at all respected by the establishment in public health,but he certainly was well respected before he had the courage to research certain taboo subjects.
http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell.html#Vaccine-induced_Illness_
"Dangerous Animal and Human Cell Lines in Vaccine Manufacture"
"In an effort to quell concerns about the safety of vaccines, scientists are finally taking another look at the "non-infectious" particles of bird-cancer viruses (avian leukosis virus) in the mumps/measles/rubella vaccines routinely given to kids. Could this be the reason the FDA held a meeting in September, 1999, to reconsider using human tumor cell lines (like HeLa) rather than monkey kidneys and chicken embryos which are no longer guaranteed 100% safe?"
"Writing in Science, Gretchen Vogel admits public trust in vaccines is a bit shaky. In Wales anti-vaccine parents are holding "measles parties" to infect their children with the disease rather than vaccinate them. She cites the danger of using immortal cell lines for live vaccine production because cancer genes or other hazardous factors might be transferred to people receiving vaccines. But manufacturers also realize vaccine critics are becoming more wary of vaccines made in animal and bird tissue. And vaccine makers want to use immortal cell lines to grow their viruses because obviously viruses can’t grow on their own.
The big question everyone seems to avoid is: Can vaccines cause cancer? There is certainly evidence connecting contaminated vaccines to AIDS. And HIV is a cancer-causing virus. Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HIV in 1984, has clearly stated AIDS is an epidemic of cancer.
Animal and avian viruses can contaminate vaccines and have all been studied as cancer-causing agents. And cancer and vaccine research would be much more difficult without the use of cell lines, some of which are derived from cancer."
"Vaccines and Public Paranoia"
"Is the fear of vaccines justified? It is clear that vaccines can be dangerous. The contamination of vaccines is a reality, and vaccine experiments can be hazardous to one’s health. AIDS, unknown two decades ago, is now an increasing worldwide epidemic with millions of death predicted for the next decade. Could vaccines contaminated with cancer-causing and immunosuppressive viruses unleash new plagues in the New Millennium? If so, the new plagues may be far worse than the diseases we eradicated by vaccine programs in the twentieth century."
Elderberryjam
"Gwen’s questions are interesting and take some time to explore." Nope, you don’t get off that easy, C2.
Since your comment is the most confrontational, Ill get it out of the way. It is Sunday on my planet and rapidly approaching Mondayback to work. Also, it is Mothers Daybest wishes to all the mothers out there! I was grilled about participating on tax dollar time and clarified that this exchange takes place off hours. Please note that my comments on the blog are not meant to be worthy of an official government documentalright, most of the time Im talking off the top of my head (hopefully not out my burro) based on experience and opinion, and hopefully staying factual within the scope of my knowledge.
Gwens questions are very specific (detailed) and she said she will take action based on the response. I dont want to be responsible for sending her in the wrong direction by giving information that isnt thoroughly researched and documented. Thus, I may never respond specifically, but maybe pass along the questions.
Ken
Scientists as well as all individuals are still marginalized and persecuted for daring to state an opinion or make choices that challenge the integrity of institutions and/or influential individuals with a reputation or agenda to protect.
Someone I know was fired (mutual resignation) once for running up against a regulator type that you so despise on this sitedid not back down on an opinion. Terrible thing and the idea of whistleblowing is a joke and only works if there is support higher in the organization or maybe the media. There are good people in governmentId say the majority, but the few bad ones can be very bad. Thats why I brought up keeping it in perspective.
Miguel
I would be interested to know what you think about the safety of vaccines.
That could be a long communication and probably not really the subject of this blog. In short, it is a complex issue like food safety. I do not have a black and white opinion, but believe the concern about the ingredients of the vaccine are misguided and an blanket anti-vaccine attitude is wrong (travel back in time, or visit Africa and other developing countries).
All of my children were raised on unpasteurized milk.
That is a common statement in public health (in many contexts) and applies until their child gets sick. That said, there is a difference between farm raised kids and nave city kids never exposed to the so-called good or bad bugsjust look at the outbreaks after city/suburban kids visit petting zoos.
Back to Gwens questions. While interesting, the bigger question in my mind is breaking down recent raw dairy outbreaks into groups like: 1) illegal imports, 2) illegal domestic bathtub cartel-like cheese/dairy, 3) casual use of raw milk from big dairy with farm workers and their families (this is very common if you didnt know it), 4) small farm operations that dominate this blog +/- a category for Organic Pastures, which is in transition to a big farm raw milk dairy.
In putting this together, I wondered if anyone knows more about this outbreak (type of farm/farmernot personalNot looking for names, just more details on the situation if anyone knows):
http://www.ktka.com/news/2007/dec/04/dozens_kansans_report_intestinal_infection_caused_/
Dozens of Kansans report intestinal infection caused by raw milk
Story by 49 News staff
3:26 p.m. Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Dozens of people in Kansas are getting sick from raw milk.
Two separate outbreaks of campylobacteriosis made at least 87 people sick.
Kansas allows raw milk to be sold within the state, but health officials want you to be aware of the health risks that come with consuming raw milk.
Campylobacteriosis is an intestinal infection caused by the bacteria Campylobacter. Infection often causes diarrhea, fever, abdominal pain, nausea, headache and muscle pain.
In the first outbreak in southwest Kansas, 68 people became ill after eating cheese made from raw (unpasteurized) milk donated by a local dairy for a community celebration. Nineteen people were ill enough to seek medical attention, and two people were hospitalized. Four of these persons tested positive for Campylobacter jejuni; no other food items served at the event were associated with illness.
The second outbreak is linked to a dairy in south central Kansas that sells raw milk directly to consumers. As of November 30, 2007, 19 cases of campylobacteriosis had been reported. Each person reported drinking raw milk purchased from the dairy.
Although most people with campylobacteriosis recover within seven to 10 days, rare complications such as reactive arthritis, hemolytic uremic syndrome and Guillian-Barre syndrome can develop.
Pasteurization is the only effective method for eliminating disease-causing bacteria in raw milk and milk products. It is a simple process that involves heating the milk to a high temperature for a short period of time.
Why is the idea of acquiring immunity by drinking unpasteurized milk so dangerous while injecting contaminated vaccines directly into the blood is deemed necessary to protect our health?
Gwen,
"Claiming "Food safety" is the only way they can win. It’s their only bait in the lineup." Also addressed to whoever said that the raw milk conversation is not about food safety.
Sorry, you are incorrect there. Food safety IS part of this discussion. The history with raw milk and disease cannot and should not be denied, unless this group wants to descend into the same approach that Ken said so well(I’m still savoring those words, and would like to send to a past adversary): in part, "influential individuals with a reputation or agenda to protect."
This raw milk movement is gaining power, what will you do with it? To deny food safety and different opinions from reasonable scientists and regulators, IMHO, would make you no different from the tyrany you say you abhore.
Sylvia,
Watching your exchange with curious, raised a question:
If you had a choice–from what I’ve read, you have no choice except OP–would you continue to defend that farmer, or pick a different farmer that isn’t linked to outbreaks and outsourcing? It seems like you are backed in a corner and support the only producer available because you lack a better choice.
C2
This a typical scare tactic article.
Notice the choice of words.
"68 people became ill after eating cheese made from raw (unpasteurized) milk "
"no other food items served at the event were associated with illness."
What are they telling us?
people ate cheese and became ill,people also ate other food before they became ill.The other foods they ate were not associated with illness.Where did they find these other foods? In my experience all foods can be contaminated and therefore be a source of food poisoning.
"The second outbreak is linked to a dairy in south central Kansas that sells raw milk directly to consumers."
They like to "link" raw milk to illness.Usually what they mean is that any time someone becomes ill after consuming raw milk,raw milk is automatically presumed to be the cause without further investigation.If they had more proof of a connection I’m sure it would have been mentioned.
This article is just part of a smear campaign by the dairy industry to frighten people into buying their milk.
Campylobacter is most commonly associated with poultry,wild birds,and dogs and cats.
Since you declined to answer my question about the public health system and vaccinations,I will answer it for you.
The public health service is, like the USDA,FDA,and the state departments of ag,staffed at the top by former or future employese of the industries that they are regulating and promoting.The public health service is a taxpayer supported arm of the medical-pharmaceutical industry.
This is not off topic for this blog.We have been talking about the former Dean foods employe who is now working for the PDA and using his position to crush Dean foods competition.What we see here is large corporations using government agencies to attack their competition.
"This raw milk movement is gaining power, what will you do with it?"
Do you think we are in this for the easy money?
If we really did have power,I would like to see more people have access to food without poisons added to it.I would like to see the direction agriculture has taken turn 180 degrees towards less concentration more diversity and real sustainability.
The USDA’s definition of sustainable now is if the farm family can still afford to buy all of it’s food at WalMart,the farm is sustainable.
C2,
Everyone’s children get sick occasionally,that it could be from the milk never entered our minds.
Thanks for all of your great posts.
C2,You must have missed my typing the name Claravale, two choices. <Sigh> As I stated, being "linked" is not the same as proof. Come to think of it– the big factory dairies have been "linked" to outbreaks… gee and people still support them, imagine that! What dairy would someone "pick" that hasn’t been "linked" to an outbreak? Aren’t all factory dairies outsourced? Don’t they all go into the same tank?
Backed into a corner? Not at all. I have no idea why you would think I am "backed into a corner". I am perfectly comfortable with what I believe in. As for supporting OP or even Claravale, they both would grow broke depending on the little amounts I purchase of dairy products. I also believe that either owner(s) would talk to me if I had questions or concerns.
I would bet the farm that with factory farms, I’d not get close to hearing from those owners.
I buy what I want from whom I want. It’s a choice. No different in choosing not to buy fast foods. I don’t like sears and do not shop there. Again it is a choice. The milk from either company at the Co-Op is whose I purchase when I do buy it. There are always choices and for those who don’t like my choices or agree with them,that is ok, they can deal with it. I have no issue with their beliefs. If you don’t want to buy from OP, then don’t, it is not a big deal to me.
Perhaps if I tried hard, I may be able to find a cow share close by, but I don’t consume that much dairy to warrent it. I could also put a cow on my friends farm, though I really have no desire to milk a cow each day nor drive out to her place daily to care for it. That is a convenience issue. Life is all about choices.
Miguel, that was very informative, thank you.
I am uncertain how to respond to these recent posts that are anti-intellectual and insulting.
How are the Saanens? I bet they are curious, productive, and obnoxious. It’s their nature, I’m in discussion with my family about getting some whe we move to the foothills. Frankly, I think their size is a good thing (for protection against coyotes) in combination with their personality. Are we going to go milk/raw milk with the goats, not sure…
C2
cp: THANX for the warning.
Saying that it is without routinely testing pasteurized milk off the shelf, and comparing it with even clean unpasteurized milk is unethical. Saying that it is safer than raw milk in general is also an unfounded argument if the end product has not been routinely tested and compared in a scientific manner. Pasteurization and bottling are human processes that clearly have flaws. People HAVE been poisoned by pasteurized milk.
I don’t mean to be confrontational, but no process is foolproof. Pasteurization, I’m sorry, is NOT a no-brainer. Please excuse me when I ask repeatedly for someone to support their arguments with others, and the answers keep coming back with words like "sand fight," "no brainer," and "MySpace."
Hospitals didn’t begin testing routinely for MRSA until people became indisputably ill and died from it. It was assumed that since antibiotics killed bacteria, that people were cured of infections by antibiotics. Will the pasteurization process follow the same path of false assumptions until they are indisputable? It looks that way.
Any safety argument cannot ethically be made without comparable facts. Peer reviews are not necessary when the argument is freedom of choice, but those making a "safety" argument had better have done some thorough peer reviews. They haven’t, and so there is no safety argument being made here, whether or not safety is an issue. There are only unsupported suspicions, aka "hot air."
Those who argue freedom of choice have a darned good argument. Those arguing safety, have no valid argument. They only have laws that to date are unjustified and unsupported by scientific evidence. Evidence equals comparable scientific data. It does not equal assumptions.
If you say "safety" in relation to raw milk, I’m going to ask you for scientific rationale. I’ve become impatient, because nobody using the word, "safety," is offering it. Hey, at least I’m not comparing this discussion to sand fights and MySpace. I’m just demanding answers.
Gwen
calling anyone anti-intellectual is really not contributing anything to the conversation.I don’t think anyone is trying to be insulting.Our points of view are very different,but that is exactly why I value what you have to say.I want to understand why you are so determined to save us from our foolish ideas.
If you don’t make an honest, unbiased attempt to find the source of food poisoning,then you don’t have any reason to make unfounded accusations.
Any farmer who has sold grade A milk will have some interesting stories to tell about erronious lab tests. They aren’t that uncommon and it is extremely unusual that the mistake is in the farmers favor.I’m not accusing the lab techs of doing this .I suspect it is a mistake in transferring information in the office.
If we stopped pasteurizing the crappy factory farmed milk tomorrow, how many people do you think would become ill within the first week throughout the U.S.? The number would be enormous. Pasteurization is effective for killing bacteria. However, pasteurization does not equal healthy milk. These are two separate issues.
People who support the use of raw milk do so because they believe it has health benefits. I do not disagree with this belief. Is there a risk of pathogen contamination in both pasteurized and raw milkyes. Which carries the greatest risk? Thats debatable. We dont know the true number of people drinking raw milk in the U.S., so its impossible to figure out the statistical risk and compare the two. I think everyone will agree that deadly pathogens should not be in any food we eat or drink.
Pasteurized milk that becomes contaminated, does so post pasteurization. The danger from the cow has been eliminated. With raw milk, contamination occurs from the cow, because this pathogen variable cant be controlled.
I was doing a little research on the topic of pasteurized and raw milk outbreaks. Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria seem to be the most common culprits for both milks. There is one bacteria found in raw milk outbreaks that I couldnt find in pasteurized milk outbreaks. Can anyone guess what it is?
Ecoli 0157:H7 seems to be unique to raw milk. Its vulnerable because it takes such a small number of bacteria to cause someone to become seriously ill. Raw milk ecoli outbreaks are real. In the state of Washington, two separate outbreaks (2005 & 2006) occurred ten months apart, where the matching DNA fingerprint was found in the milk. One was from a cow share program and the other was store bought.
In both of these cases, no children died. To me, Ecoli 0157:H7 and raw milk feels like a ticking time bomb. Children under age five who develop HUS from Ecoli 0157:H7 have a very high chance of dying. Children two and under, death sentence.
What do you think would happen to the raw milk movement if a child died from Ecoli 0157:H7 after drinking raw milk? How would the raw milk community view this death? Would this be considered a casualty no different than if a child died from spinach, lettuce or hamburger? Children die. Thats the reality of life. Life is full of risks.
I believe children on farms build up immunities to many things, including pathogens in raw milk. Its different for children who live in cities and are first time drinkers. Bad things bad things can happen for this group of raw milk drinkers when raw milk is readily available in grocery stores. I dont think this issue is given enough educational attention in the push for selling raw milk to as many people as possible.
How does any particular "pathogen" reach sufficient numbers to cause illness?
In the laboratory a "pathogen" can be cultured by knowing the conditions that will allow it to reproduce more quickly than the rest of the bacteria that it is competing with.
It is these specific conditions that are really the cause of the illness.Without the right conditions that help the pathogen outgrow its competitors, it would die out.
Can we control these conditions in order to prevent illness?
There are about ten "pathogens" that can be of concern in milk.They all have in common that they are not competitive with the common beneficial microorganisms that live in the soil, on the plants and in the air.We can call these beneficial microorganims probiotics.They are our best ally in preventing the population of "pathogens" from reaching the numbers that can cause illness.
If we can create the conditions in the soil that favor the probiotics and then feed the cow in a way that maintains this balance of microorganisms we can prevent the problem of "pathogen" contamination in the milk.Even the manure will not be a danger in this system.
It is modern methods of agriculture that have tipped the balance in favor of pathogens in the soil and in the way cows are fed.Pasteurization fails completely to make the milk safe when the soil and the cow are not cared for properly.
You talk about e-coli 0157:H7 as being a ticking time bomb for unpasteurized milk.Paratuberculosis or Johne’s disease is not a bomb waiting to go off.It has already exploded and injured tens of thousands of people,leaving them with chronic infection of the digestive tract.In people it is called crohn’s disease.It is a chronic ,life long and devastating disease.It’s origin can be traced directly back to soil microorganisms being out of balance and improper feeding of cows.Pasteurization fails completely to protect us from this disease.
But, "deaf ears" is right. After spending some time here, I can see why public health does not trust raw dairy to produce a safe product. Below is a summary/paraphrasing of arguments from some (not all) that are concerning and counter-productive IMHO.
1. The outbreaks are propaganda distributed by the government. This argument effectively ends the discussion: no point trying to learn from past raw milk outbreaks because they were all made-up by the government.
2. The government report on the outbreak says "linked" or "supspect/possible," therefore the government didn’t know what they were doing and were sloppy. Again, this logic shuts down discussion and dismisses food safety. FYI–we always use terms like "linked, suspect, suggested". whether describing a ground beef or raw milk outbreak.
3. The belief by some that grass fed cows are somehow resistant to E. coli O157 or other pathogens. This argument allows one to say an outbreak "linked" to a dairy that fed grass must be a mistake or a government conspiracy. Yes, there are papers that describe increased E. coli O157 in grain fed cattle. But, there are other papers that found no difference between grain and grass fed cattle. Here’s a notable example of E. coli O157:H7 in grass fed cattle:
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/fdb/local/PDF/2006%20Spinach%20Report%20Final%20redacted%20no%20photosfigures.PDF
"Here’s a notable example of E. coli O157:H7 in grass fed cattle:"
That is alot of material to search through to find the part that says the cattle were tested and shown to have the e-coli 0157:H7 in their manure.Could you point out the section that refers to that subject and print it out?
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/13/12/1908.htm
Could you send some links with evidence to back up your statement below for E. coli O157 specifically. Someone sent a good link on Listeria. My concern is..what if you are wrong to depend on feeding and "beneficial" bacteria alone–especially when E. coli O157 is involved–a virulent strain where low numbers can cause severe illness, especially in children (no margin for error).
"They all have in common that they are not competitive with the common beneficial microorganisms that live in the soil, on the plants and in the air.We can call these beneficial microorganims probiotics.They are our best ally in preventing the population of "pathogens" from reaching the numbers that can cause illness."
There has been a lot of discussion on this blog in the past about e-coli 0157:H7,probiotics,and grain feeding.Some people refer to me as a grass nazi because I don’t believe that we should be feeding any grain at all to cows.
From The Dairy Practices Council pub 100
titled Guideline For Food Safety In Farmstead Cheesemaking.
" The time for a microbial cell to double is called the generation time. One microbial cell under ideal conditions multiplying over seven hours with a generation time of 20 minutes will result in a total of two million bacterial cells present."
Microbes reproduce by division. The result of an imperfect division in a common nonpathogenic e-coli can produce an e coli 0157:H7
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a very familiar bacterium. Although found everywhere, including the human body, E. coli strains are usually harmless; but some can cause diarrheal diseases and even death. However, their presence in the human intestine is necessary for normal health and development. Some strains help synthesize B vitamins and vitamin K. Keeping the intestines healthy with probiotics will automatically keep this one in check so that its numbers will not get out of hand to where it becomes a pathogen . This is from http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/biotics/proborg
Given that the number of e coli in our bodies can number in the billions and that mistakes in division are not unusual,how can we prevent this microbe from killing us? It is futile to think that we can prevent disease by eliminating microbes.
From Science Vol.281 Grain feeding and the dissemination of Acid-Resistant E coli from Cattle.
Cattle with colon ph 7.15 had 20,000 cells/gram E. coli subjected to an acid shock similar to human stomach acid left <1 viable cell of E coli.
Cattle with colon ph 6.6 had 6,300,000 cells/gram E.coli after acid shock … 25,000
Obviously no one can assure that food never is contaminated with E. coli. With billions of cells dividing every 20 minutes,we would have to test the cow around the clock.That is precisely why you will always eventually find E. coli 0157:H7 in a cow if you look long enough. That doesnt mean that the E. coli will live long enough to reproduce and multiply.
Not feeding grain is the absolute safest way to produce milk. And not eating grain whether it is Organic or not is the best way to keep your digestive system on the alkaline side.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2005/03/articles/case-news/e-colis-insidious-spread/
""Probiotic means friendly microorganisms that are good for the health of humans and animals," he explains. A subgroup are the competitive exclusion bacteria, which is how Doyle classifies the probiotic with which he has been working. The bacteria have been isolated from cattle that do not carry 0157 and are actually an antimicrobial to 0157 that lives in the rumen of cows.
"If we feed these bacteria to cattle," he says, "within a short time, 80% to 90% of the cattle don’t shed 0157 in their feces." The new probiotic would be inexpensive, perhaps as low as a dollar a treatment.
A veterinary pharmaceutical company is studying the probiotic. From there, the FDA would have to approve its use, but Doyle feels confident it will be on the market in the near future."
I certainly share your concern about the pathogenic bacteria.I don’t take the responsibility of producing food for my family and others lightly.What I see is a safer way to produce milk.
We never feed grain to ruminants and we feed probiotics to the young calves routinely as part of their diet.In the winter they get along with the best hay,colostrum from their mother,whole milk,cultured skim milk(cultured with kefir),cultured buttermilk,and whey from cheesemaking.All of these foods are abundant sources of probiotics.In summer they get all the cultured foods plus plenty of grass.
We raise our children on probiotics too.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FI3VydG3DfYJ:www.milk.org/Corporate/pdf/ResearchProject2007.pdf+probiotics+competitive+0157:H7&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=32&gl=us&client=firefox-a
"Recently it has been demonstrated
that certain probiotics switch off the
genes in E. coli 0157:H7 and other
food-borne pathogens responsible for
illness"
🙂
Why do you think they found E. coli O157:H7 in a fairly large number of the grass fed cattle fecal samples (26 positive of 77 tested, or ~34%)?
C2
The study posted on the CDC site is very interesting. I notice that O157:57 was found in approx. 34% of cattle feces, not in the cattle themselves. How did they ensure that they were getting feces from a number of different cattle, not just many samples of feces from a few cattle? Were these cattle on grass only or was there some supplemental feed? If on grass only, for how long? All their lives or only recently?
cp–
I have not seen anyone on here recommend that factory farm milk should not be pasteurized. What I see is people wanting to have the choice and freedom to buy and sell clean, carefully handled raw milk from healthy animals–and to allow others the freedom and choice to drink pasteurized homogenized milk if they prefer.
I also am very interested in the answers to the excellent questions Gwen asked many posts back.
Jean
The methods used in the lab in a way recreate what happens in cows digestive systems when they are taken off the range and put in a feed lot.The cows on range for the most part aren’t shedding any e-coli 0157:H7 in their manure.After a few weeks in a feed lot the population of 0157:H7 in the manure has increased significantly.Where does this e-coli 0157:H7 come from?I doubt that they feed raw milk in the feed lot.No,the change in feed has created the conditions that suppress the probiotic bacteria that were keeping the small number of 0157:H7 from increasing.In the lab, they try to suppress the competeing bacteria and encourage the growth of 0157:H7.
The important thing to understand is that,because the generation time for bacteria is very short(about 20 minutes in ideal conditions)and because bacteria can exchange genetic material with other bacteria and viruses and also incorporate free floating DNA pieces into their DNA,they can adapt to the new conditions very quickly.Common nonpathogenic e-coli will adapt to the new conditions in the lab just as they did in the feedlot cow by change over a few generations into acid tolerant, antibiotic resistant e-coli 0157:H7.This is not my personal theory.This is accepted as fact by microbiologists.
Here are my thoughts about factory farm dairies:
1. The cows are treated inhumane.
2. The cows are sick and therefore the milk is sick.
3. Pasteurized milk from these cows is not healthy to drink and in fact does cause many illnesses. I agree with your statement 100% about Crohns disease.
We have six options regarding the consumption of dairy products from cows:
1. Mass produced pasteurized milk from industrial dairy farms.
2. Smaller family farms that pasteurize.
3. Organic milk from companies like Horizon and Organic Valley. A healthier choice, but its still pasteurized (ultra) and homogenized and the proteins and enzymes are damaged in the process.
4. Raw milk, legally or illegally
5. Buy a cow
6. Abstain from cows milk
I choose option # 6. I have kids. The risks are too great.
Which is worse? Your child ends up developing Crohns disease from pasteurized milk or gets Ecoli 0157:H7/ HUS from raw milk which results in permanent kidney damage.
This is why I like option # 6.
Theoretically I tend to believe everything you are saying about soil, grass feeding, and the consumption probiotics with cows. It just makes logical sense. Human beings can change their chemistry by what they eat, so Im sure the same process can happen with animals. The problem I see with this approach is Im not sure all farmers could be this committed. It goes back to the know your farmer mantra. As for 0157:H7, it may help reduce it significantly but it’s not 100%.
On a side note, I think all the raw milk farmers that post on this blog are worth knowing. I empathize with your struggle for the right to sell raw milk.
Thankyou,and before you give up entirely on dairy products,do a little reading about probiotic milk products.If I lived on a tropical island,I wouldn’t try to keep a cow .I would just eat a lot of coconuts.
"How did they ensure that they were getting feces from a number of different cattle, not just many samples of feces from a few cattle? Were these cattle on grass only or was there some supplemental feed?"
This outbreak was scrutinized in the public eye and has been the subject of many meetings/conferences. First, thanks for not dismissing the report as simply a government conspiracy/lab error. I know a little from being in public health, but do not claim to understand the whole story. 2 things: 1) the investigators sampled different cattle at different times. I feel confident from their reports that the 26 positives were not from the same few cows and 2) I visited the website of the grass fed beef producer. They appear to sell mostly by internet and believe in their operation. I don’t know if they are "sneaking" grain or "outsourcing." Also, I am apalled that the state would put their name in a report. It is one thing to name Mark McAfee and Mark Nolt–they have gone public. But, this producer did not ask to get involved (no one directly connected his cattle to the spinach, though it seems likely these cattle were involved indirectly–something to learn from and not deny, but also not attack their business). To let you know, I can taste a difference between grass fed and feedlot produced beef. Doesn’t mean I think it’s safer, but it is tastier.
cp,
I too am discouraged with the high production farms, but equally concerned about the denial with small farming and food safety. You say, "This is why I like option # 6"
How about goats? Are cattle a unique problem?
C2
This is what you gathered by reading this blog? I can see why there is so much distrust of the govt community. Your words are biased and skewed for sure.
2. The government report on the outbreak says "linked" or "supspect/possible," therefore the government didn’t know what they were doing and were sloppy. Again, this logic shuts down discussion and dismisses food safety. FYI–we always use terms like "linked, suspect, suggested". whether describing a ground beef or raw milk outbreak.
Ive read of outbreaks that were from specific dairies or meat processing plants, the words linked, suspected, or suggested were not used, definitive accusations were made.
3. The belief by some that grass fed cows are somehow resistant to E. coli O157 or other pathogens. This argument allows one to say an outbreak "linked" to a dairy that fed grass must be a mistake or a government conspiracy. Yes, there are papers that describe increased E. coli O157 in grain fed cattle. But, there are other papers that found no difference between grain and grass fed cattle. Here’s a notable example of E. coli O157:H7 in grass fed cattle:
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/fdb/local/PDF/2006%20Spinach%20Report%20Final%20redacted%20no%20photosfigures.PDF
How have you come to these conclusions for all thses statements you have made? Would you quote/site the statements you are alluding to for your conclusions, so that others may follow your line of thought processes?
Raw goats milk can harbor Ecoli 0157:H7. There have been outbreaks throughout the world. As for pasteurized goats milk, there is only one brand, Meyenberg, sold in my area of Southern California. It is a family owned business. Unfortunately, it is ultra-pasteurized, not organic, but no hormones are added. The positives are its naturally homogenized, you wont get Crohns disease and its the closest to human breast milk.
Occasionally my kids will drink this brand of goats milk and when we use cheese it is goats milk cheese. I really try to stay away from dairy altogether.
2)One study does not discount all studies on grass fed cows and its relationship to raw milk. How do all the studies compare? Get back to me on that, please. Go ahead and pick out the differences for me, if you will.
3)It is NOT impossible to compare consumer-level pasteurized milk to raw milk. And saying it is impossible is a pretty lame excuse to not even try to. That’s what all this resistance is about. Nose to the grindstone and just do it, because you don’t have a safety argument for pasteurized until you do.
4)I have NEVER pushed to sell raw milk to as many people as possible. I think it is a choice and a right to choose what we buy to eat, raw or cooked.
5)Children do die, every day, of all sorts of things. I work on the code team in a hospital. I have yet to see a child die of …consuming raw milk. Fact: children have died in the past 32 years of consuming pasteurized milk, more than raw milk. Again, I think that fact alone warrants an in-depth comparison study.
5)C2, would you please give me the exact quote of where in the world I said that "outbreaks are propaganda distributed by the government," and that "they are all made up by the government?" Twisting outbreaks to mean that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized is propaganda, but nowhere did I say or suggest that the actual outbreaks were propaganda. However, there are several instances where governmental workers have quoted statistics from the CDC that could not be found by anyone. Would you care to elaborate on how this happened?
6)We agree on a few things. The govenment HAS been sloppy with its statistics. Pasteurization does not equal healthy milk. Deadly pathogens should not be in food we eat or drink. Children in cities should have better immune systems. Oops, that is twisting YOUR words. You said that children in cities DON’T have the immune systems that farm kids do. I can agree with that.
My grandfather, James F. Giffin, a county commissioner, used to say to his opposition, "We have the same facts, but we’ve come to different conclusions."
Gwen
"C2, would you please give me the exact quote of where in the world I said that "outbreaks are propaganda distributed by the government," and that "they are all made up by the government?"
Sorry if you thought those earlier bullets were directed at you specifically. They were some thoughts in my head summarizing (paraphrasing is the word I used, I think) this long (now 82 post) discussion. There were several reasons for the above statement, but the one that stands out was from Miguel (I think) after I asked about the Kansas outbreaks last year.
Maybe I am too sensitive, but your tone feels unnecessarily harsh. I participated here to share my perspective and learn more about the issues from this active and diverse group of bloggers.
You need to recruit someone else into this blog to answer most of your questions. I am not an authority on raw milk (more of a generalist in public health science with an interest in this topic). I do understand enough from the statistics and a laboratory background to make a different conclusion from yours, But, I am not the person to go head-to-head in the type of debate you seem to be proposing.
C2