Stay Connected
Search
Login
« Throw YouTube into the Mix, and the Case Involving OP and Sick Kids Gets Weirder and Weirder | Main | Is Another Raid Planned on Mark Nolt? The PDA’s Undercover Guys Are Posing As Raw Milk Customers »
Thursday
21Aug2008

Get Ready for Pasteurization of Veggies; Probing Big Dairy’s Raw Milk Connection; Opposition to SB 201

Isn’t this the way milk pasteurization started? You have a number of disease outbreaks. You try pasteurization out in a few places, in a few markets. You reassure the public that pasteurization doesn’t change the nutritional value of milk. Processors love it because it extends shelf life. And presto. After a few decades, it’s the only legal product and the old way is illegal.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved “ionizing radiation” of spinach and lettuce, in response to outbreaks of illness from E.coli 0157:H7, some of which have been linked to spinach and lettuce. We’re told it doesn’t affect the veggies’ nutritional value. The technique is expected to be applied initially in just a few markets. But that may well change, since the FDA says the irradiation extends produce shelf life. It makes sense that dead veggies last longer than living veggies, just like dead milk lasts longer than living milk.

Irradiation is currently allowed for meat and some fish. Now it extends to veggies. The FDA seems likely to extend approval to other foods. It all follows up on required pasteurization of ciders, juices, almonds. Seems we really are edging closer to the time when all our food is sanitized, and to get the real thing, we’ll have to grow it ourselves or go directly to farms.

***

As Steve Bemis points out in a link following my previous post, there is an excellent retrospective on the politics of raw milk by John Schwenkler in Doublethink Online. I had spoken with John during his research, and it looks as if he went and did his homework—the article is well worth reading.

The most intriguing parts of the article have to do with his reporting efforts to tie Big Dairy to the sabotage campaigns against raw milk’s legitimacy. I’ve long been dubious of this tie—not doubting that Big Dairy would prefer a world without raw milk, but suspecting that it isn’t a big enough threat for Big Dairy to spend a lot of time and money on. And that looks to be kind of what Schwenkler found--that there is opposition, but it’s not a high-priority matter for Big Dairy.

One dairy official worries that all the attention paid to illnesses from raw milk might damage the overall milk “brand.”

I think Schewnkler is probably more on target when he examines the raw milk situation in the context of factory farming/agribusiness and the consumer movement. Here, though, he neglects to point out that the 1987 FDA ban on interstate sales of raw milk occurred over the objections of the FDA, at the behest of the dean of the consumer movement, Ralph Nader.

***

Finally, germ lawyer Bill Marler seems to have discovered a potential marketing opportunity in the pending California raw milk legislation, SB 201, which is designed to undo the crazy coliform regulation that threatens to put the state's two raw milk dairies out of business. There hasn’t been anything in the way of real opposition, so Marler leaps into the fray with a press release on BusinessWire, claiming, “the country's top food safety advocates are calling on California legislators to vote against it.”

I read through the release, looking for the names of all the top food safety people who have aligned themselves with the germ hater. But, alas, only one person is mentioned in the release--the person who paid (the appoximately $500) for putting it out: Bill Marler.

Reader Comments (96)

Another raw milk testimonial...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0DCbIFU_0U
August 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCathy Dilante
Cathy,

Actually there has been no link to raw milk and the illness proven.

Your conclusion that there is a connection between the illness and raw milk is fraudulent and a lie.

That means you are a fraud and a liar.

Do you work for the FDA? Or Marler?
August 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterConcerned
Here we go again. Guilty until proven innocent! Hard to believe that Bill Marler grew up drinking raw milk.
August 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRuth Ann Foster
Actually I think it is an E.coli 0157:H7/Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome testimony. Anyone eaten hamburger lately? Or spinach? Or lettuce? Or raw milk? All are high risk foods for E.coli 0157:H7.
August 21, 2008 | Unregistered Commentercp
Concerned,

"Your conclusion that there is a connection between the illness and raw milk is fraudulent and a lie."

I sent a link; no conclusions. And, I don't work for FDA (what's Marler?). To be a bit more forthcoming, I am a student studying the 2 sides of the raw milk debate and the testimonials provided by each. A contact gave a link to this site as a resource for a different point of view.

Cathy
August 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCathy Dilante
Perhaps I should look for more than 10-20 acres?
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
Cathy, hello, welcome to the world of raw milk. I am "a Marler." I have a different perspective too:

http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/case-news/governor-schwarzenegger-veto-this-bill/
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBill Marler
Sylvia,

More than 10-20 acres...our dream is to have a "back 40," and getting the dogs to poop at the most distant point from the house :-) Seriously, that video is disturbing whether it's raw milk, spinach, ground beef, or a petting zoo. Rather than point fingers away from each "culprit," perhaps everyone should work together to prevent the suffering. These are not simply "accidents," I've read enough to know there were high "standard plate counts" before the illnesses at Dairy A; non-compliance reports at Nebraska beef; no kid-friendly handwashing stations at petting zoos; etc.

"Concerned" runs from the truth. I hope some better people start over.and save "raw milk" from that selfish perspective.
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterConcerned2
Unfortunately there will always be those who know what basic standards are and how to impliment them (sanitary conditions,including processing correctly products, etc) yet short cuts are taken and/or totally neglected. That will never change, and that may be a huge reason for the consumer to step up and do their own research and take responsibility for chosing what they consume.

An example: I was able to drive by OP dairy outside of Fresno while I was working, at numerous times of the day. I researched the dairy the best I could on the net and asking people at the Co-OP, Claravale has always been sold out when I go there so I have not been able to try that milk, I have since been able to find out much more information on Claravale and would have no problem with consuming that milk too. I would not consider drinking just any raw dairy. And now that irradiation of foods are becoming more and more prevalant, I will be buying less than I already do from stores.

Perhaps more than 20 acres will give a side line of selling excess produce. I've never been around pigs and never butchered beef, I suppose you are never too old to learn.
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
Sylvia,

Depending on when you entered the market, a full analysis would have required you to take the 99 south at Manning, drive about an hour south to a town called Pixley. At Pixley, you would take the southern most exit off the freeway and drive about fifteen minutes west to the dead end in the road. Do the drive some time.

Amanda
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Cathy,

I’m curious... If you are in a post high school program, what is your study major? I ask because the raw milk debate intersects with both biology/physiology, and constitutional rights, so requires a rather broad understanding.

Raw milk promoters are generally “live food” promoters who, at root, believe that the definition of “pathogen” needs rethinking. They (we) point out that simple exposure to a pathogen is not a reliable disease predictor (some who are exposed get sick, others do not), therefore the status of a disease host is an important factor in individual and public health. We wonder why our medical practitioners and our regulators (and our Marlers) seem so unconcerned with the status of disease hosts, but focus instead on the “supply side,” if you will, of the health equation, getting reliably exercised over the mere presence of this or that “pathogenic” microbe, but not over an immune system destroyed by industrial food and perhaps by narrowly focused medical care. The “demand side” of the health equation is to them, at least when treating an illness, or implementing a rule, or arguing a tort case, nonexistent.

The constitutional issue creeps in because those who desire to achieve health by energizing the “demand” side of health—by building their immune systems, encouraging soil health, etc.—are having their tools taken away from them by a system driven by a supply-side focus. That system promotes dead, industrial foods, pesticide use, herbicide use, genetic alteration of seed stock, irradiated foods, and so on, while establishing rules counter to the sustenance of our natural environment, and impeding the free sale of live foods like raw milk. (The recent push to use coliform counts as a milk quality measure stands as evidence. Coliforms, of course, can be very beneficial and are in fact necessary for health, but according to the actions of our regulators and Marlers, they are uniformly bad things. That rule would have actually diminished milk quality. And if you have read recent posts here about the lactoperoxidase system and its effect on campylobacter, you will have noted other evidence that a health supply-side focus can be damaging to humans.)

I and others on this blog wonder where our rights have gone, and we wonder also just how much damage the regulators and the Marlers and even our medical practitioners will do, before this whole thing turns around.
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave Milano
A note from Colorado:
That video is designed to scare people. It's based on half-truths and accusation. If I were the parents, I'd be ashamed for making unproven and vicious statements, not to mention for exploiting my child's pain and suffering. Apparently they see it differently. Guess I would too if it were my child.

CSU is planning a pathogen challenge test this fall. They are going to inoculate raw and pasteurized milk with human pathogens and see what the growth rate is in each for a variety of human pathogens. We're enthused and hopeful.

I want to see a study done on the gut health of raw milk consumers. I want to know why, when thousands of consumers drink "tainted" raw milk, only 5 get sick. What was the diet provided this child before illness? (And why did they prescribe antibiotics, which I understand trigger kidney failure in this illness?)

There ought to be a class for every raw milk consumer about building immune health, and understanding whether or not they are "immune-compromised" before they decide to consume raw milk.

I keep thinking the reason they can't find the source of the tomato/no wait pepper/no wait oh let's just irradiate it all problem is because they're not asking the right question - Was the victim immune-compromised?

-Blair
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMary Blair McMorran
The mantra of the pseudo food safety experts is always " no child or the eldery should ever consume any raw dairy for any reason" HMM what do they have to say about this? Nothing of course.
"NUKED FOODS" THE DANGERS OF IRRADIATED FOODS
http://www.truehealth.org/nukedfood.html
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDon
Cathy, hang in there, there is much to learn on this blog, both pro and con (and even, sometimes, a creeping middle zone of common ground). Your posting was a bit ambiguous, hence some of the reaction.
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
Don,
I do advocate the consumption of raw milk. We witnessed some very postive benefits in our family. I certainly am opposed to irradiated food. But I think it's unwise to make blanket recommendations like one food fits all. I think that it's especially wise to exercise caution when dealing with sick people.

I am afraid to give raw milk to my 84 year old father. Not that I don't trust the milk - oh yes I do! He's on oxygen, statins, all kinds of drugs - definitely immune-compromised. I think his body might be able to handle the detox, but the second he feels bad he calls the doctor for another drug...it's s a no-win situation.

Thanks Steve, for your encouraging post. I like the diversity on this blog, especially when it's civil and thoughtful.

Welcome Cathy, and keep offering challenges. How are we going to learn anything if we always agree with each other?
-Blair
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMary Blair McMorran
Rumor has it that SB 201 passed the Assembly with the necessary 2/3 vote. I don't know the actual count.

I have to say I am disgruntled over the outsourcing issue. Don't pitch the legislation to me as prohibiting outsourcing when it does not.

I've lobbied for my basic amendment with no satisfaction:

http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/SB201.pdf

The bill has changed since I wrote the letter, but I would write a letter with similar intent today.

What raw milk drinker wants milk intended for pasteurization and bottled as "certified raw milk"? I posed the question here on this blog once "Would you drink milk from a random bulk milk tank?" and, if memory serves, the resounding answer was "No."

Amanda
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Interesting. The comments are very diverse on this board. Many other places I've visited show only a single point of view. It is fascinating that a lawyer participates here. The pros and cons posts on his blog were very helpful too. I haven't formulated a strong "opinion" yet, but appreciate having good places to gather information. Thanks.

Cathy
August 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCathy Dilante
SB 201 passes Assembly 63 to zero in CA...

Hey everyone, Sb 201 passed the State Assembly in CA today with a vote of 100% yes and zero no votes.

Amanda, why are you so negative? Not sure if you love or hate raw milk? This is a great day for raw milk safety and whole food nutrition. Lets celebrate this great success!!

It is also a day of tragedy as I just learned of the unlabeled death of vegetables via FDA authorized irradiation.

SB 201 stands as a shining example of how good science and good people can change a paradigm and make things better.

Take notice America...get involved in the polical process and make good change happen or in the alternative...live in an off grid Tee Pee on 20 acres in the mountains, milk your own skinny starving cow and let things to go to irradiated hell in a none recycleable handbasket.

It is time to change the FDA and that means all of us engaging not disengaging. They are us. They are people and they can be fired. Their policies can be changed and not tolerated.This is a country run for money.

Vote by changing what you spend your money on and products will change to get your dollar. That is how it works in the USA. Vote with your dollar and things change. Monsanto just learned this lesson the hard way. BST does not sell so they are selling their BST division.


Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
August 23, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermark mcafee
Amanda, I have switched jobs this year and no longer drive throughout the state (for which I am releaved.) I looked on the map and Pixley is over 4 hrs from Sacramento. I'll keep it in mind should I head that way again. ;-)

"the status of disease hosts"

Dave, could this be that it would require actual research into the "hosts" immune status, and perhaps through research it would be discovered that the modern diet/environment contributes to the decline in healthy immune systems?

I don't recall where I read it, but the foods of 60-70 yrs ago had higher nutritional values then the foods of today. Doesn't that tell people anything? Don't they care why there is a decline? Why aren't tptb rectifying it? It seems there is just more artificial junk piled on our foods. Unnatural and unhealthy-unknown to the masses.

It will be interesting to read of the CSU pathogen challenge test when it is completed.

Mark, I believe Amanda's issue is with out-sourcing. As she pointed out, most don't want raw milk that is/was destined for pasteurization. Out-sourced milk is not something I'd have confidence in. The visions of the factory dairies come to mind.
August 23, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
Outsourcing raw milk. Visions of Chris Martin's video tape come to my mind.
August 23, 2008 | Unregistered Commentercurious
Member Account Required
Register or Log In to leave comments. Click the links here or in the upper right part of the page.