Pasteurizing Mother's Milk: The Bureaucrats Should Pay Us for These Ideas!
Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 10:38PM
The discussion on my previous post about registering nursing moms and pasteurizing mother’s milk may not be as far fetched as they sound.
The agriculture regulators in places like New York, Pennsylvania, and California have been stung by the court actions and protests to their cavalier ways with raw dairy. Like good bureaucrats everywhere, they won’t deign to re-consider their positions, but rather focus on trying to plug holes in their existing regulations. I can just hear them:
“If they want retail sales of raw milk, we’ll give them retail sales of raw milk, heh, heh. By the time we finish regulating the dairies, they’ll wish they had never heard of retail sales of raw milk.”
The solution will be to create more “air-tight” regulations that savvy lawyers like Gary Cox of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund can’t poke holes in. Then back them up with cries of, “For the sake of the children.”
So, if consumers want raw milk, well, then every cow needs to be registered. And what the heck—it all fits together with the National Animal Identification System.
That old idea of keeping a family cow or two, that will be termed a relic of another age that just doesn’t fit in with today’s super clean and super-efficient society.
So, there must be a baby somewhere who became ill after nursing—considering all the mothers who nurse and all the babies who get a sniffle or whatever—so who’s to say it wasn’t the mother’s milk that made the baby sick?
I happened to be listening recently to a recording from last December’s ACRES U.S.A. conference, and heard a cattle consultant talk about how most calves are taken from their mothers within hours of birth, and fed powdered (pasteurized) milk. That helps explain why butterfat content in whole milk has been progressing down. But if calves can be protected with pasteurized powdered product, why not humans?
This is America, after all, and anything is possible.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
Sorry this is so long.
"and heard a cattle consultant talk about how most calves are taken from their mothers within hours of birth, and fed powdered (pasteurized) milk"
In big production farms, the calves are taken immediately from their dams as I understand it - the dairy cows are not even capable of nurturing a calf (not bred for that). The girls go to crates and grow up to be productive heifers/milkers; the boys go to veal or beef - not top line beef though...how are they treated?
Curious - how do raw milk farms handle their calves and deal with the "sharing of milk" with humans? What is the outcome for the male calves/kids that can't be recirculated back into the herd like the females?
Regarding human breast milk, there doesn't seem to be any question in the literature about the benefits of natural breast feeding (and pasteurizing such milk would be dumb except certain situations like the HIV example) - nevertheless, moms that choose or must use infant formulas ought to have a safe source. This is not always the case. Numerous examples of contamination of baby formulas from samonella to Enterobacter sakazakii exist...some unfortunate examples...
Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Sep 25;104(1):1-34.
Enterobacter sakazakii: a coliform of increased concern to infant health.
Gurtler JB, Kornacki JL, Beuchat LR.
The first cases of neonatal meningitis believed to have been caused by Enterobacter sakazakii were reported in 1961. Prompted by several subsequent outbreaks of E. sakazakii infections in neonates and an increasing number of neonates in intensive care units being fed rehydrated powdered infant formula,
considered to be a source of the pathogen, public health authorities and researchers are exploring ways to eliminate the bacterium or control its growth in dry infant formula, processing environments and formula reparation areas in hospitals...
Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Jan 15;46(2):268-73.
Powdered infant formula as a source of Salmonella infection in infants.
Cahill SM, Wachsmuth IK, Costarrica Mde L, Ben Embarek PK.
Powdered infant formula is not sterile and may be intrinsically contaminated with pathogens, such as Salmonella enterica, that can cause serious illness in infants. In recent years, at least 6 outbreaks of Salmonella infection in infants that have been linked to the consumption of powdered infant formula have been reported. Many of these outbreaks were identified because the Salmonella strains
were unique in some way (e.g., a rare serotype) and a well-established Salmonella
surveillance network, supported by laboratories capable of serotyping isolates,
was in place. Another common feature of the outbreaks was the low level of salmonellae detected in the implicated formula salmonellae may be missed in routine testing). These outbreaks likely represent only a small proportion of the actual number of Salmonella infections in infants that have been linked to
powdered infant formula. Managing this problem requires a multidimensional approach in which manufacturers, regulators, and caregivers to infants can all play a role.
At Meadowsweet Farm, all calves are with their moms until 4-5 months old. Specifically, we put the mom and calf into a pen in the barn as soon after birth as convenient. The calf stays in the pen for 2 weeks which is about when they have enuff smarts to recognize electric fencing and to respond to their mom's call. The mom goes to the milking barn at milking times but otherwise stays with her calf for the first 2 or 3 days for bonding. Then she goes out with the herd at night for the rest of the 2 weeks. After about 2 weeks, the calf goes out with the mom and the herd during the day. At evening milking we separate out all the calves and put them back in a pen with hay and water for the night. The calves drink almost half of their mom's milk and humans get the rest.
We've tried bottle feeding and you do get some very friendly cows that way, but letting the calves nurse is the best method we've found for the health of the calves.
The male calves are castrated and raised for beef except for the one we choose to raise for a herd bull each year.
By the way, milk replacer powder (not only is it pasteurized but it contains a lot of soy and not so much milk) is cheaper than raw milk so most commodity dairies would rather feed replacer than increase their costs by using real milk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/health/15well.html
I share-milk with calves too. I think a lot of smaller raw-milk farms do... it makes life much easier than bottle/bucket-feeding, actually.
My newborn calves run free-access with dams until two weeks old; morning and night, I milk out what they don't drink up. When they start leaving less milk for me, I lock them up during the day, and at night I milk out the left side and they get the other; calves are then released with their moms for night. After 8-10 weeks, they're locked up overnight and I get all the milk in the morning; they get her the rest of the day. When they start slicing and dicing teats with their teeth (around 5-6 months old), they're weaned permanently.
I've found this way the cows never get mastitis (in fact, nursing calves will cure mastitis naturally); the calves get everything they need, both mental and physical, including nursing, love and nurturing from moms; they're way healthier (no scours or intestinal problems of any kind, no worms); weaning is practically effortless because both moms and calves are used to being separated; and the calves are HUGE without needing grain after weaning to make them grow.
Someone mentioned earlier that dairy calves don't produce good beef. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is, beef-breed calves are raised by the dam until weaned and can nurse every hour if they want. No farmer would, or even could, feed calves every few hours, not to mention most dairy calves are fed artificial crap and not enough of even that, to cut costs.
But raise that dairy calf with more or less free access to his mother and you'll have beef just as tasty and tender as the best beef breeds.
On pasteurizing mother's milk: the problem is that the benefits of breastfeeding are more than just the sum of the nutrients in the milk. There are advantages to the baby in jaw development, for example, compared to a baby receiving an artificial nipple. There are benefits to the mom as well. Anyone who has both pumped and nursed would know well that once nursing is established, there is no easier way to feed your baby.
I believe that most milk banks pasteurize their donor milk.
Amanda
Anyway, before considering what material to use to fill a cavity, consider healing the tooth with nutrition instead.
"Merck, which makes Fosamax, says it will study whether the unusual fracture pattern is really more common in bone-drug users."
Now that would be a study, I'd NOT believe.
Will the majority ever see that lifestyle, diet and environment are the key factors to good health?
Formula is actually detrimental to the health of babies, and there is enough research to back this up that state-by-state, offering formula to new mothers in OB units is being done away with.
Oh, wait. You don't have an argument. You're just being tongue-and-cheek.
Most of the "cool" nursing mothers in the forums these days have decided NOT to cover up. The latest fashion is to sensitize the public to the fact that in most states, breastfeeding (no covering needed) is not only legal, but a normal site. If you own a business, and you ask a nursing mom to cover up, be prepared for a sit-in of exponentially more; or to be sued. Just ask Delta Airlines, Applebees and Victoria's Secrets. Nursing women are so sick of being asked to "cover up," that they are advised to carry a copy of their state's version of the revised code with them, for educational (and possibly legal) purposes.
Human formula is going out of fashion. Milk banks and wet nursing are coming back in, modern style. I'm not sure where you all have been. It clearly has not been in the breastfeeding districts.
Gwen
I follow the "party line" with regard to breast feeding and assume the experts are correct that this is the best way to go - in public health circles, scientists with expertise in this field are really passionate about the benefits ranging from long-term health (like obesity prevention) to psychological effects. I'm not an expert on the topic and trust their data - plus, common sense would suggest mothers milk is better than artificial formula provided the mother is healthy and not on medications/drugs, etc.
But...this is a personal question...a relative recently decided breast feeding didn't work for her. A personal choice? She's a young, vibrant mother with what appears to be a very healthy, thriving infant. "Early on," I delicately asked about why not work harder to breast feed given the known benefits, but it was clear that discussion made her very uncomfortable. So,dropped the subject (not a big deal as long as she doesn't put raw milk in the formula, LOL). Seriously, educating moms to breast feed seems appropriate, but should they be pressured to do so? Are they wrong to choose formula (should that be regulated: tongue in cheek question - you must breast feed)? Regardless, I hope industry and government are watching out to be sure the commercial formulas are safe and wholesome since there have been many food safety problems documented with infant formulas.
C2
Liberty means having the freedom to make wrong (including less-than-optimal) decisions. The "experts" (whom some of us trust even more than common sense) may be right on the issue of breast feeding, but that is irrelevant. They have no right to push anyone.
We are currently in trouble because experts have been given power to turn their ideas into laws and actions. They've dug us an enormous hole, and shoved us in. Only the frantic flapping of a few revolutionaries has prevented them from completely covering us over.
We should all remember that it's easy as pie to find an eloquent expert espousing just about anything. Here's a quote from Margaret Sanger, still a hero among many:
"...the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel, sentimentalism."
We should consider the influence Sanger had, and continues to have, on governments' and private philanthropic organizations' efforts to promote negative eugenics when we consider whether it's "right" to push somebody toward breastfeeding, or pasteurized milk, or public school, or Medicare.
And David, on the question of whether the bureaucrats should pay us for these ideas--I'm for it!
Given your views on food choice, I'm quite surprised you didn't report this young woman to child protective services. :) After all, science strongly correlates breast-feeding and lifelong health.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no scientific basis for making the milking of a dairy animal for private use require a permit. It just potentially makes a beneficial "personal choice" an illegal activity.
It's a good thing science isn't the only criteria for legislative activity. Otherwise your relative would be in jail.
I am glad to hear that "human formula is going out of fashion". Just reading the ingredients is alarming.
I'm sure I've walked by many uncovered mothers nursing and didn't realize what they were doing (I don't usually pay that close attention). Most appear to be discreet.
Educating the new parents on infant nutrition would help them make better choices for their new baby. (When I say "better choices" I am referring what is best for them, that doesn't mean I agree with it).
I also think the majority of people do trust TPTB to inform and protect them from fraudulent products. However, that faith is sadly misguided.
Instead of teaching people to weigh what is best for them, they are forced and/or pushed into things that are not always safe nor the best for them and their families. Chicken pox for example; Why would the majority need a vaccine against chicken pox? Do you risk an adverse reaction from the vaccine or do you risk complications from the illness? Do you know what is best for you? Or do you require someone to decide for you?
http://www.909shot.com/Diseases/chickenpox%20facts.htm
"Data from 1992 showed that about 158,000 cases of chickenpox were reported and 100 deaths were reported. More than half of the deaths were in adults because chickenpox is more serious in adults than in children. Up to 20 percent of adults who get chickenpox can develop severe complications such as pneumonia." "That translates into 67.5 adverse events per 100,000 doses of vaccine or one in 1,481 vaccinations. About four percent of cases (about 1 in 33,000 doses) were serious including shock, encephalitis, thrombocytopenia (blood disorder) and 14 deaths." "mass vaccination against chickenpox may cause a future epidemic of shingles, affecting more than 50 percent of Americans aged 10 to 44 years."
http://www.answers.com/topic/childhood-vaccine-injury-act?cat=health
http://www.909shot.com/myths.htm
The 1st paragraph says a lot.
Because of the way our American culture sexualizes breasts, nursing becomes a very personal issue for women. Some women really can't breastfeed also, and the reasons are a whole lot more complicated, than even I, who breastfed 4 children (still am my 2 y/o), did not know how complicated it was for some women until with this 4th, I joined several forums for moral support in pumping while I went back to work. Reading the conversations about figuring out the details opened even my eyes.
I also worked with a woman who exclusively pumped for her son for an entire year (no breastfeeding involved). Her son bit, and her attempts to stop this backfired very early on. She would not be likely to tell a persistant relative this. Most babies do bite, and there are things you can do to make them stop, but some have a particular problem with it, and some women do not desire an amputation. Would I explain this to my uncle or cousin? No. Exclusively pumping, particularly while working, takes more commitment than any other form of feeding one's infant, and I have the highest regard for this woman.
Sometime, visit the blog called, "The Lactivist." This woman sells t-shirts for the milk bank of Ohio. Breastmilk fed to neonates is pasteurized. I did not have enough milk to donate myself, but some women have a natural abundance and donate gallons. Knowing all that milk has to be pumped, every 2-4 hours of the day over months gives you an appreciation for the women who donate this milk. Most of them are like me - went back to work, and ended up with much more milk in the freezer than their babies drank. Infants with health problems can receive prescriptions for this milk. There isn't enough of it to go around for more than that. It is proven much more beneficial, even pasteurized, than any formula on the market, and it has saved the lives of many neonates and infants with severe allergies.
I respect a woman's right to choose whether or not to nurse, and her right to privacy. Formula will not kill most babies. My position is that every woman should have to go out to get her first formula out of need, not be given it "for convenience," and that every new mother should be visited and assessed by a good lactation consultant. Most women don't know there are solutions to their breastfeeding problems. Some don't want a solution, and that should remain their choice. But they shouldn't be handed that choice on a silver platter. A baby should be permitted to nurse anywhere a baby is permitted to have a bottle or pacifier stuck in its mouth. I feel very strongly about that.
To bring this back to topic, the dairy we ingest would be healthier if the calves were not fed formula either.
Gwen
"Given your views on food choice, I'm quite surprised you didn't report this young woman to child protective services. :) "
Thank goodness no breastfeeding activitst is carting off my niece to child protective services - I might have to become a personal choice activist :)
Also, you must know by now that many of us are not anti-personal choice, per se, but there is a dilemma where food safety and personal choice interface in a conflict. Exploring that line is interesting, but difficult, thus many pick one side or the other and call it a day. And we go in circles, which might be why there is an abundaqnce of legislative/court activity with this issue.