My first job in journalism was with the Chicago Daily News, a proud bastion of American journalism. I got hired while I was still in college as a copy boy. My job was to sit at the front of the vast newsroom with two or three other copy boys. Each time a reporter or editor yelled “Boy!”, one of us would jump up and scoot over to to grab freshly written or edited copy and deliver it around the building to the next editor or typesetting station for processing. (It didn’t matter that one of my co-workers was a girl, she responded to “Boy!”)
When I worked the four-to-midnight shift, my job sometimes included running over to the grungy Billy Goat Tavern (today it would be considered “funky”) down under Michigan Avenue, and picking up some whiskey for a columnist on deadline.
My favorite part of the job, though, was standing outside the press room, and watching through the clear glass the huge printing presses, which stretched for what seemed like a city block, humming and turning the rolls of newsprint into the next day’s “news.” I loved the smell of newsprint and ink, the mammoth size of the presses, the whole aura. Most of all, I think I loved the idea of being there on the inside as the day’s “news” was being packaged for shipment out to the community at large.
When the Chicago Daily News went out of business in 1978. I was very sad, just as I was for a number of years afterwards as other metropolitan papers failed or struggled. But as the trend has accelerated in recent years, I’ve come to realize that these behemoths of the establishment probably deserve to fail.
I know everyone blames the Internet, but the Chicago Daily News went out of business for the same reason the Associated Press will eventually fold of its own weight, and eventually most of the nation’s metropolitan papers will bite the dust: they lost contact, if they ever had it in the first place, with their readers, whom we might refer to today as “the end users.” I bring up the Associated Press because it just published a major article about raw milk, and the best I can say for the article is that it is pathetic.
It says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures, to be “a snake oil salesman,” without citing a source. It says parents of five children sued Organic Pastures, when in fact, two sued.
There’s also disagreement about the interview process. Mark says the reporter hasn’t been in touch since at least mid-April, and then it wasn’t clear the reporter was working on a story about the grand jury investigation. The reporter, Paul Elias, told me he had “three distinct interviews” with Mark, having spoken with him most recently a week-and-a-half ago.
I would guess that the real situation is somewhere in between, but what’s key here is that Mark seems not to have been kept in the loop about what was happening, and what was happening was extremely important. When the Associated Press does a major story about you, it’s still a huge event (despite the old media’s decline), because that story could be picked up by any of more than 1,700 newspapers and 5,000 television and radio outlets that are members of the AP. It’s much bigger than a single paper doing a story, so the reporters owe it to a subject like Mark to be upfront about what they’re doing.
The bottom line, though, is that the article represents the government’s viewpoint much more than the consumer viewpoint or Organic Pastures’ viewpoint in that its main purpose is to scare people about raw milk. It comes at the story from the viewpoint that if the government is investigating you, it must be because you did something wrong, not because possibly the government is conducting a vendetta against you. Fortunately, increasing numbers of people understand that they can’t believe much of what government mouthpieces like the Associated Press publish, which accounts for the fact that Mark’s business increases each time such a smear comes out, and Associated Press’ business drops.
In that vein, it’s worth pointing out that since the Chicago Daily News folded in 1978, the Bill Goat Tavern has grown from a single bar to a city-wide enterprise with seven locations, and one in Washington, DC. My guess is that in thirty years, we’ll be able to say the same thing about the AP and Organic Pastures–AP will have folded and OPDC will be thriving. Yes, whisky and raw milk will outdo slanted government propaganda every time. Maybe Bill Marler and I can drink to that sometime.
As Bill Marler points out following my previous posting, the Centers for Disease Control has come out with its report on the six California children who became ill in September 2006. It’s heavy-duty reading, in part because it seems almost designed to confuse in terms of who got sick from what. Or is that because they just aren’t sure what happened?
And they state, once again, that a boy got sick after consuming raw milk at a friend’s house. Wasn’t that the story of Lauren Herzog, a girl?
Also, the timing of this release and its admonition to avoid raw milk is intriguing. The events are nearly two years old, yet here it is being released on the eve of hearings and debate in California over AB 1735 and the newly proposed SB 201. Normally, I’d say I’m being at least a bit paranoid, but having seen the lengths to which both state and federal authorities are willing to go to so as to frighten people and derail Organic Pastures, I have to say such conjecture seems eminently reasonable.
Five of six patients reported they had consumed brand A raw dairy products in the week before their illness onset; the sixth patient denied drinking brand A raw milk, although his family routinely purchased it. Among the five patients who consumed brand A dairy products, two consumed raw whole milk, two consumed raw skim milk, and one consumed raw chocolate-flavored colostrum. Four of the five patients routinely drank raw milk from dairy A. One patient was exposed to brand A dairy product only once; he was served raw chocolate colostrum as a snack when visiting a friend. No other food item was commonly consumed by all six patients. No other illness was reported among household members who consumed brand A dairy products.
Heres the same information broken down by bullets:
6 children/teens became ill (ages 6-18); four were male and 2 were female
5 of the 6 reported consuming brand A raw dairy products in the week before the onset of their illness; the 1 patient (male) who reported that he didnt consume brand A dairy products the week before becoming ill, does routinely consume brand A raw dairy products (just not the week before becoming ill).
Of the five patients who reported they consumed brand A raw dairy the week before becoming ill:
o 2 consumed raw whole milk (1 male, 1 female)
o 2 consumed raw skim milk (1 male, 1 female). We know this was Lauren Herzog and Chris Martin because it was discussed on this blog.
o 1 consumed raw chocolate-flavored colostrum (he was visiting a friends house and this was the first time he was consumed a brand A raw dairy product) (male)
o 4 of these 5 patients routinely drank raw milk from dairy A (we dont know which 1 of the 5 didnt routinely drink brand A raw dairymaybe this was Lauren Herzog).
No other food item was commonly consumed by all six patients
No illnesses were reported among household members who also consumed brand A dairy products the week before the children/teens became ill. However, we dont know how many household members also consumed brand A raw dairy products.
Maybe if you ask him, he will tell you.
"Milk samples from these production dates were not available for testing."
Wasn’t a sample from one of the homes refused by authorities? They had a chance to example the sample and they refused it.
"Fifty-six product samples from several lots with code dates of September 17, 2006, or later were retrieved from retails stores and dairy A and were tested for aerobic microflora, total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli O157:H7. The outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 was not found in any product samples."
Is this saying that samples taken from the "Dairy A" products in the stores shown no E-Coli?
"CDFA and CDPH conducted an initial inspection and environmental investigation of the milk plant and dairy on September 26. E. coli O157:H7 was not isolated from any of four environmental samples. Samples from three heifers yielded E. coli O157:H7, but the PFGE and MLVA patterns of these E. coli O157:H7 isolates differed from the outbreak pattern."
Still no matching E-Coli.
"the exact mode of milk contamination in this outbreak was not determined."
And it was not determined because….?
"To reduce the risk for E. coli O157 and other infections, consumers should not drink raw milk or raw milk products."
Why don’t they "suggest" this same mantra with hamburger, poultry, etc?
Thank you, Steve. I couldn’t agree more. The #1 reason I’ve been avoiding reading this blog the last few weeks.
Mr. Marler, answer the question. If you don’t want to participate, then go away.
Regarding David knowing about the bill as opposed to Bill knowing about the CDC report, I have this to say. Being in the know regarding a bill for congress is quite a bit different than being in the know about a governmental report by an agency that is supposed to report unbiased data to the public. It is quite a bit different. The former is permissable by law. The latter – a lawyer trying to "own" people by sueing them, knowing about governmental records in advance of their being public, smells of a rat in the grain bin.
Gwen
" No other food item was commonly consumed by all six patients"
should certainly be footnoted. When the Health Dept distributes questionnaires in these kinds of illnesses, there is a short list of foods – have you recently consumed raw milk, deli meats etc. If they get a hit on that short list, they stop looking.
So what that really means is "No other food item from our short list of usual suspect foods was commonly consumed by all six patients."
We need better funding for public health in this country.
I think that is a bit of a reach and on the other hand of that, this inconclusive data could go in the other direction as well. It doesn’t show me that it was NOT dairy A.
Mr.Marler, are you saying that "a month or so ago" a conversation you casually overheard a part of at a conference gave the specific date of release of the CDC report, enabling you to tell us to look for it on the very day it came out? Are you saying that of the hours and hours of conversations that probably went on at that conference you just happened to be at the right place at the right time to hear that info, and that you made note of the fact that not only was the report soon to come out but the exact day had already been decided and you made note of that day?
You really do think we are stupid, don’t you?
Bob Hayles
Bob Hayles
Not We Bob – YOU
The mudslinging! This is why is blog has gone to h*ll!
Good shot Marler…no one else has to prove you are a typical shyster bottomfeeding pond scum. You do it so well yourself.
Bob Hayles
Yes, inconclusive data can go either way. Wouldn’t it be better if the official had accepted the offer of the OP milk sample from one of the families as cited in a past post on this blog and tested it for E. coli? It would have yielded one more important piece of information as to whether an OP product actually consumed by a victim during the outbreak period was really contaminated. Instead the report resorts to saying that there weren’t any samples available from the production dates in question.
Then there is the question of the sixth patient who "denied" drinking any OP milk. This would indicate there are only 5 cases related to OP unless the person forgot or is lying. If he is telling the truth, where did the matching E. coli come from?
Then the trivial factual error regarding the gender of at least one of the six cases.
Lastly there is the circular assertion that although there was no evidence of E. coli contamination, they cannot find the means by which the milk was contaminated. This isn’t a conclusion – it’s a presupposition.
There’s really no doubt in which direction the CDC wanted to head on this – the party line.
It reminds me of the days when the Melissa/Mary posts consumed the blog and diverted and distracted many people.
Now we allegedly have marler posting among others who’s purpose seems to be to again divert the attention of the real purpose of this blog which I believe is freedom of choice for all including the children and elderly to consume healthful raw milk.
If Marler is indeed posting he must not have much of a practice considering the number of posts he has here.
I believe that the government has already lost the war to stamp out raw milk. There may be many battles ahead but they have lost.
I invite those that are against raw milk to work with those that want it to develop a reasonable system for widely providing the product.
That seems like a much better use of resources instead of sending in nazi storm troopers to arrest a farmer and confiscate food and equipment.
Thank you, Rob!
Who would you blame for the food poisoning linked to the tomatoes?
Clearly the unpredicted absorption of chlorine along with the salmonella into the tomatoes at the stem scar was a strong factor in what caused the illnesses.The concentration of chlorine in the rinse water was at least 5 times the concentration that would cause cells in the mucosal lining of the intestine to be killed.Even at this toxic to the body concentration it was not enough to kill the intended target,the salmonella.
Should we take a second look at the way our food is sterilized to be sure that it is really that "silver bullet or kill step" that protects us or is it sometimes the unintended consequences of the "kill step" that is actually making people sick?
I think the use of chlorine to soak fruits and vegetables in before packaging should be rethought.And while we are taking a second look there,lets take another look at the consequences of pasteurizing dairy products.
In investigating the ’06 ecoli outbreak, TPTB discover that most, if not all, of the patients drank raw milk, leading them to the natural conclusion that it was raw milk that caused the outbreak. The initial evidence indicated that if product from OPDC had been contaminated, this would explain the outbreak.
However, despite several rounds of tests, TPTB could not find any actual hard evidence of the specific ecoli contamination at OPDC or in any OPDC product — though they did not test any product from any of the households involved in the outbreak.
It seems to me that now, with their strong opinion that raw dairy is bad combined with the lawsuit that OPDC could lose, TPTB are strongly motivated to color the facts against OPDC — just as Bill Marler, the attorney suing OPDC, has. As Kirsten points out, some parts of the CDC report only make sense if you approach it with a "raw milk is bad" attitude. I skimmed it, and did not strike me as a particularly good report — just one example is their contant reference to ‘raw milk,’ when, in fact, one patient drank Chocolate colostrum, and colostrum is not raw milk, and one patient says they did not drink any raw milk.
Of course, OPDC’s Mark McAfee has a similar motivation to color facts in his favor. But it remains the obligation of the plaintiffs to prove their allegations. I would hope that if this lawsuit proceeds to a trial (if it does — many time suits are brought with the aim of making a settlement seem less costly to the defendant than a trial), the plaintiffs will have a plausible scientific explanation as to how three different OPDC products (whole milk, skim milk, and chocolate colostrum) came to be contaminated with the same strain of ecoli, and why that strain was not found on OPDC’s equipment or in their product. (And, in hoping to ward off the flames that seem to be erupting more frequently here, I am not saying that there isn’t a good explanation, just that I think the plaintiffs need to argue and prove one.)
But I am not holding my breath — while a lawsuit may indeed uncover new facts and provide new perspectives on events, the goal of both sides is to win however they can, not to uncover some absolute truth. And, of course, the further in time you get from an event the more garbled the facts become.
You should get some help so that you can get over the Mary/Melissa thing. It seems to consume your life!!!
They are at it again and still haven’t gotten that badly needed therapy.
Thank you for making my point MM and "a reader"
http://tinyurl.com/6ogkoq
You dont need any help making your point You seem have no problem posting your silly views here.
Have a nice day.ROB!
You only reinforce my posts.
Thank you for your assistance.
there is only one person who can or should ask anyone to "leave this blog", and that is David Gumpert who’s blog this is. If he shoulehave asked anyone to back off it probably should have been me as I despise Marler and have made that plain…probably too plain for this forum.
David has left me, and the others who get intense sometimes, alone so far as to whether they post here. Others should do the same. If they want someone gone they should start their own blog and kick soneone off of it if that’s what flips their switch.
Bob Hayles
It’s interesting that you should mention this; I was recently blogging about a different issue and the same reaction (actually all the reaction to the recent lawsuit over Wireless sensitivity in Santa Fe…). I find it interesting that when confronted with information that bucks the standard notions–no matter how complete, accurate, well-researched or convincingly presented–it is met not merely with resistance, but outright hostility. I call it the Remy effect, after the main character in RATATOUILLE…none of the other rats ridicules him for his unusual ability to sniff out rat poison, because none of them questions the idea that anyone would want to poison them…
On the other hand, no one except us counter-culture types can tolerate such an idea…How and Why would or could a government agency do anything but act in the best interests of the people??? It’s the three blind mice: Willful blindness, Blind trust, and the blind leading the blind…
more here:
http://ratiocinationandtheinexplicable.blogspot.com/2008/05/just-remember-that-they-laughed-at-noah.html
Bob
If Marler is indeed posting he must not have much of a practice considering the number of posts he has here.
Rob
Bob, I will not comment. Rob, yes, I am probably to busy to be doing this.
I have an idea, Bob, Rob, why don’t you call me directly 1-206-346-1890 and we can discuss this all off line. Perhaps we can find some common ground? I am about to leave for the airport, but will be back in a week. Look forward to speaking with you both directly.
Make sure you charge them your bottomfeeding, pond scum fees. hahahah
Have a great weekend Bill.
Your handle, screen name, or whatever tells us all we need to know about if we should pay any attention to you. While I might despise Marler, at least he has the cajones to be upfront about who he is.
Other than a jackass, who are you?
Bob Hayles
Thanks for the offer but I will pass. I have more important things to do.
So to the rest, how will we work together to get a ready supply of raw dairy across the US?
It’s for the health of the nation, especially the children and don’t let the naysayers distract you.
And what about David’s post on the poor reporting by AP?
Rob
" No other food item was commonly consumed by all six patients"
Apparently ONE did NOT comsume raw dairy.
Thank you Kirsten, you said that so much better than I.
Miguel, I didn’t know about chlorine soaking/washing. I had just read not too long ago, about chlorine and birth defects; cleft palets, heart defects and I think the 3rd was mental delay. Yes indeed, the govt is looking out for us. I find it amazing that the govt can say where the Salmonella in the tomatoes is NOT from but cannot say where they came from. It makes them truely inept.
"Last week we were having a fantastic, rational exchange of differing opinions."
Yup. I’m staying out of this exchange…
C2
I too would like to get back to a rational exchange of differing opinions, as C2 nicely stated it.
I have often wondered why kefir has never been mentioned in the discussion of raw milk safety issues. Kefir has a vast microflora and is reported to be antibacterial, among other attributes. Milk inoculated with grains can suppress the growth of some pathogens such as Salmonella or Shigella
Two articles that discuss the probiotic qualities are
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869P/CHEM869PLinks/rawhealth.net/kefir2.htm
and
http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin94.pdf
The argument has been made that the beneficial bacteria in raw milk can knock out any pathogenic bacteria. I would think that raw milk cultured into kefir would be even more efficacious at battling the bad bugs. I would love to see an experiment of what happens after E. coli O157:H7 is introduced into kefired raw milk.
I don’t drink raw milk as such, but everyday for the last 7 years my elderly husband and I drink a glass of kefir made from raw milk. He is immune-compromised with chronic leukemia, but neither of us has had any illness in that time span. I suspect the kefir has helped prevent the infections that someone with CLL is subject to..
Do the scientists here have any knowledge about the probiotic quality of kefir? Seems to me you can enjoy the benefits of raw milk with far less possibility of danger from pathogenic bacteria than might be found in raw milk.
Does the milk used with "kefir grains" have to be raw (for taste and/or health benefits)? Most of the probiotic research leans toward adding specific "proven" bacteria into the product–a reductionist perspective for good or bad. The experiment(s) you suggest would be interesting.
The comment you liked about being rationale was written by cp, who has a knack for articulating key points.
Rob pre-dates my flight over to this site and my first impression was not negative, but later posts contradicted his/her early statement "I invite those that are against raw milk to work with those that want it to develop a reasonable system for widely providing the product." Invitation? Before things got "ugly," I wanted to ask: what is meant by "widely?" Increasing the number of small, local farms or promoting large scale commercial distribution of raw dairy products in stores or both?
C2
Most people don’t like change. I think they also have a comfort zone with believing "the powers that be" will take care of things so to speak. Unfortunately, "the powers that be" are looking out for industry, not the people.
I still believe that educating the public in a professional truthfull manner of the pros & cons of raw dairy & pasteurized (this would include any consumed product: chemical ladened, etc) is the best way to go. I’ve not seen a chart of all raw and pasteurized dairy contaminations side by side.
If there is no absolute proof that something came from a specific source, than that should be stated. Obscure language that alludes to a source is misleading and no different than an out-right lie. Didn’t the recent Listeria deaths have a difinitive source? If the govt entities aren’t doing their jobs and following the laws, then they should be fired. If the laws are twisted and ignored those who abuse the system should be held accountable.
History does repeat itself, simple handwashing was greeted the same:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/hand_background.php
http://www.hygenius.com/history.htm
Amanda
On the "his", "her" issue: the Herzog child got the product from the father’s girlfriend. I don’t know if it was at the father’s house or the girlfriend’s house. I have assumed that there was yet another child who receive raw product as a snack somewhere and that the child was a boy. I certainly don’t have the records to know one way or the other.
Amanda
I was just wondering if the fifth person was subtyped.
On the subject of kefir and refigeration, some microbes are cryophiles, preferring low temperatures, some are thermophiles – like those in yogurt. I suppose you could customize your culture to include the beneficial microbes that grew optimally at the temperature chosen.
Lets break this information down by what we do know from participating on this blog:
6 children became ill in September of 2006 with E.coli 0157:H7; five of these cases were cultured confirmed with a matching PFGE pattern; this means the identical strain of E.coli 0157:H7 caused the children to become ill. It was not the same strain as the spinach.
Child #1Chris Martin. He drank OP raw milk, became ill with all the symptoms of E.coli 0157:H7 and developed HUS. His case was not cultured confirmed.
Child #2Lauren Herzog. She drank OP raw milk. Her case was cultured confirmed and she developed HUS. She consumed the raw milk at her fathers girlfriends home. It was not the first time she consumed raw milk. The girlfriend posted the details on this blog.
Child #3 He drank OP chocolate colostrum as a snack when visiting a friend. This was the first time he consumed an OP product (according to the report). His case was a cultured confirmed match.
Child #4 He claims he did not consume an OP product the week before becoming ill, but his case was a cultured confirmed match. According to the report, his family routinely purchases OP products.
Child # 5 He drank OP raw milk and his case was a cultured confirmed match.
Child # 6 She drank OP raw milk and her case was a cultured confirmed match.
There are two children in this mix that some are questioning if they should be included on the list. That would be child #1 and child #4. Child #1 was not cultured confirmed and Child #4 did not consume an OP product the week before becoming ill.
That leaves four children (child #2, #3, #5 and #6) who all consumed an OP product, who all became ill and all had a cultured confirmed matching PFGE pattern. One of these children, Lauren Herzog, developed HUS and as a result suffers permanent kidney damage.
Thanks for your reply.
Four of children 2 through 6 were subtyped via MLVA. Do you know which four had the matching subtype? Specifically, did #4 have the matching subtype?.
In the CDC report it states, Four of the five E.coli 0157:H7 isolates were subtyped by multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) according to a protocol used by CDPH laboratory and were found to have closely related MLVA patterns.
I know as much as anyone else does. We have this one sentence in the CDC report.
Kirsten, can you expand on what MLVA means? Maybe C2 can also help us with understand this testing protocol?
MLVA is another DNA fingerprinting method that may be used in combination with PFGE, but PFGE remains the gold standard for typing foodborne pathogens. MLVA compares differences in the E. coli O157:H7 DNA sequences.
A combination of "indistinguishable" PFGE patterns and closely related MLVA types is very compelling evidence that the patients all had the same rare strain of E. coli O157:H7. That rare strain of E. coli O157 could very well have been on the dairy for a short time period and contaminated the dairy products or equipment (quite plausible looking at those very high plate counts and coliforms before the outbreak), but by time the state sampled the farm weeks later it was gone. It is possible that strain will never be seen again, or maybe it will show up in another outbreak. These are tracked on a national databased called PulseNet.
For those that are fascinated with DNA fingerprinting and want to know more:
http://www.panalimentos.org/pulsenet/files/8609430194_Next%20Generation%20Typing%20Methods.ppt#2
Nice! But Jujuni is a place in Bolivia.
😉
What do scientists know about how e.coli morphs? Is there a pattern? How many samples of spinach e.coli fingerprints did they have to compare with the dairy e.coli fingerprints, or any other e.coli fingerprints?
Were these kids taking any common drug before they consumed pathogens? Can we really say we know anything about ID’ing pathogens, when we know that gene expression depends on the environment, nutrient and stress a body is exposed to?
Seems to me genetics is a largely unknown field as yet. I suspect David is right; OP will be around for a long time.
-Blair
The milk used for making kefir with kefir grains can be either raw or pasteurized and is not restricted to cow’s milk . Body Ecology has a powdered kefir starter which is more convenient for many people but has a much more limited number of bacteria and yeasts than kefir grains and is not as robust. If I remember right, kefir grains are a mix of something like 26 strains of bactera & yeasts.plus a polysaccharide base.
Kefir grains are added to milk and cultured at room temperature, optimally around 70 degrees, for around 24 hrs or until whey pockets form. Kefir can also be obtained by letting the milk/grain mix sit in the refrigerator for about a week. When temps are high, I use a mix of refrigeration and room temp. I always strain and refrigerate my kefir after sufficient culturing.
The mix of bacteria and yeast species will change based on the culturing temperature and the varying characteristics of the milks available. Therefore different kefir grains yield different tasting kefir.
If you want to try kefiring, I could mail you some grains.
That sounds very time consuming and complicated (making kefir), but your description is intriguing, and I’d like to try it. Is the kefir on the shelf at "Grocery [Trader] A a convenient substitute, or just a semi-scam like "organic" or "free range?"
C2
I would characterize bottled kefir as an inferior, convenient substitute, but not a semi-scam.
I encourage you to read this article about kefir::
http://www.naturalnews.com/022822.html
This paragraph is taken from there:
"The organisms found in kefir can be divided into 4 genus groups: Lactobacilli, Streptococci-Lactococci, Acetobacter and Yeasts. Kefir, prepared with grains, contains as many as 35 different strains of bacteria and yeast. Commercial powdered starters are available and these contain 10-15 organisms, while the bottled kefir you buy in the store contains a maximum of 10 strains (along with a lot of things you dont want). Most bottled kefir contains only bacteria as many states do not allow the selling of beverages with live yeasts, so, as you can see, if you want kefir for its probiotic value, it only makes sense to culture your own. It is very simple to do, taking about 5 minutes a day. It is also quite simple to prepare cheese from kefir."
There are 2 major brands of bottled kefir: Helios and Lifeway. According to http://www.auri.org/news/ainapr99/03kefir.htm,
Helios uses locally produced two-percent organic milk from the Organic Valley/CROPP cooperative, kefir cultures from European grains, and FOS imported from Holland.
Lifeway ingredients are posted here: http://www.lifeway.net/product/owmk_desc.php. From what a company rep posted on the Lifeway blog, it sounds like they add starter cultures to cooled, pasteurized milk.
Lynn
I’ve been wanting to try my hand at making kefir, but I didn’t know where to get kefir grains. Could I get some grains from you? I’ve never had a surplus of raw milk (white gold) but with the warm weather we aren’t drinking as much so now I have a little extra to play around with. Let me know!
lswartz89 at hotmail dot com.
Thanks!
C2
This is where I got my cultures from 7 years ago: http://www.gemcultures.com/. They are highly respected, but I see they have recently changed hands. They charge $20 for the grains plus $12 for shipping.
Kefir grains are also available from individuals on various lists such as the yahoo kefir groups. As you culture kefir grains, they expand in number, so you wind up with more than you need after a while. I have more than enough for my current needs and would be willing to mail them to you for the cost of postage plus a cooler pack.
Lynn