The Complete Patient

In the old Soviet Union, political dissidents were, with the backing of the medical establishment, routinely committed to psychiatric hospitals and injected with powerful mind-altering drugs that took much of the fight out of them.

I raise this example of the brute involvement of a country’s scientific establishment into the political process because I just finished a close reading of the Centers for Disease Control’s report about the illnesses affecting six California children in September 2006, which were supposedly caused by raw milk. While I wondered a few days ago about the timing of its publication—on the eve of hearings June 24 about SB 201 replacing AB 1735—now I have now doubt that this involves much more than timing. This is a political document, not a public health document. Indeed, it is really propaganda, because it is designed solely to mislead and to push a particular political agenda. Here’s how:

1. It rewrites history. Government propagandists love to distort history. The CDC paper starts by saying that six California kids became ill in Sept. 2006. “As a result of this and other outbreaks, California enacted legislation (AB 1735), which took effect January 1, 2008, setting a limit of 10 coliforms/mL for raw milk sold to consumers.” As I read this, I could almost imagine politicians in the California legislature debating and discussing the illnesses, and assessing whether a coliform limit might be the answer. Of course, as we all know, there was no debate, nothing even close to a debate. AB 1735 was enacted with barely a whisper—that coming from the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The state’s key legislators have openly acknowledged that they were duped by AB 1735.
2. It relies on a double standard. The paper argues that 25 states that allow the sale of raw milk “report more outbreaks of foodborne disease attributed to raw milk than those states that have stricter regulations.” It notes: “During 1973--1992, raw milk was implicated in 46 reported outbreaks. Nearly 90% of these outbreaks (40 out of 46) occurred in states that allow the sale of raw milk, suggesting that even the regulated sale of raw milk might not be adequate to prevent associated illnesses.” Now, even allowing for the likelihood that not all those outbreaks were really from raw milk, supposing we substituted the terms ground beef or salami or shellfish for raw milk. Wouldn’t there be more cases of foodborne illness in states that allowed the sale of ground beef, salami, or shellfish than those that didn’t?
3. It uses “science” to pursue a purely political agenda. In addition to rewriting history, the paper in two places blames the absence of a coliform standard for causing the illnesses. “At the time of this outbreak, California did not have a coliform standard for milk sold raw to consumers,” it states early in the paper. As part of its “Editorial note” at the end, it concludes: “These findings suggest that if raw milk had been subject to the same coliform standard as pasteurized milk in California, milk from dairy A might have been excluded from sale and this outbreak might have been averted.”

All this comes on top of dubious evidence—one child didn’t show E.coli 0157:H7, one “she” is a “he”, and one child says he/she didn’t consume raw milk. I wonder if maybe we need to send the child who refuses to admit drinking raw milk for “re-education” in a psychiatric ward. You think that’s a wild idea? Here’s how the paper concludes: “Because illnesses associated with raw milk continue to occur, additional efforts are needed to educate consumers and dairy farmers about illnesses associated with raw milk and raw colostrum.” Sure, brand all raw milk drinkers as troublemakers and send them off to a psychiatric ward.

***

Raw milk moves further into the political center. Now a Washington, DC, “socialite” is sponsoring a $100-a-person fundraiser on behalf of Pennsylvania farmer Mark Nolt. One of his customers, Lyn Rales, is hosting a fundraiser at her Bethesda, MD, home this Saturday to help defray Mark’s expenses following two raids by Pennsylvania agriculture authorities. Contributions should be made out directly to Mark Nolt, and sent c/o The Weston A. Price Foundation, PMB 106-380, 4200 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 20016. Those contributors sending in excess of $100 will be invited to attend the event, space permitting.

***

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has posted a recording of last month’s teleseminar about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).