Caught in the Act: Lori and Darren McGrath Gain Support for a Bogus Listeria Finding in NY
Monday, August 4, 2008 at 10:07PM 
Practically a year to the day after I wrote about the suspicious finding by New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets of listeria monocytogenes in the raw milk produced by Lori and Darren McGrath’s Autumn Valley Farm in Worcester, the agency has come up with a second identical finding.
Last Friday, it put out one of its scarlet letters—a press release announcing the finding that gets picked up and posted by the legal low lives of the world, never to be taken down—saying the agency’s lab had found listeria and the McGraths were halting sales of raw milk.
Only this time, the agency has a problem. The McGraths learned a hard lesson from their experience last July, and resolved to do split-sample tests of everything the state took for testing. So a sample from the same batch of raw milk that NY Ag & Markets took on July 22 went off to an independent lab in Ithaca, NY, hired by the McGraths—a lab that does any number of state-mandated tests as well.
The results just came back from the independent lab and, you guessed it, no sign of listeria monocytogenes.
Needless to say, Lori is pretty upset, since she and Darren not only face the loss of business from having to halt sales of raw milk, but a fine from the agency as well. And, of course, no one has become ill, just as no one became ill during last summer’s episode. “I don’t understand how there can be such a discrepancy,” she says.
She adds that the customers she has called to inform of the state’s finding, under requirement by the state, haven't even considered discontinuing consumption of Autumn Valley's raw milk. “All these people are continuing to drink it.”
Lori says she knows well the dangers of listeria monocytogenes—that it can kill children, and cause miscarriages in pregnant women. “I am a mother. If I thought for a second that a child would get sick, I wouldn’t be doing this…You try your very best because you are feeding babies and children.”
Why would NY Ag & Markets be coming up with false positives? Lori doesn’t want to speculate, but I will. There is a movement in New York to legalize retail sales of raw milk, including a legislative proposal, as I reported last month. If and when hearings are held, NY Ag & Markets wants all the scare story ammunition it can possibly muster to defeat any such movement it doesn’t control with an iron fist.
Adding insult to injury, it’s very difficult to get judges to rule against state agencies on the basis of test result discrepancies, says Gary Cox, a lawyer for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, since scientists can point to differences in lab techniques to create doubts among judges. Justice is definitely in short supply for New York’s producers of raw milk, and NY Ag & Markets is definitely in a trampling mood.
Reader Comments (38)
Mark Twain said there are liars and there are dam liars.
Is this where you do a video of the collecting process- from start to finish on your property?
Broadcasting techniques for the public to see, may force proper technique. But then again, maybe not.
Maybe showing the state/federal/truckers collectors doing the collection at the same time as you or whomever you use for your own counts...the contrast would be amazing.
If the competitive exclusion argument holds, warm samples filled with beneficial bacteria should reduce the listeria, not increase it, no?
Amanda
The FDA guidelines have a zero-tolerance policy for l. Monocytogenes, which means that finding even one active or dead CFU is grounds for a contamination alert. Warm conditions will encourage the growth of all probiotic and pathological bacteria, and while over time the probiotics will out-compete the bad bugs if the test is performed quickly enough it may still detect a handful of listeria cells.
The FDA guidelines also call for "enriching" the sample with specific chemicals that encourage the growth of l. Monocytogenes and deactivate the protection mechanisms in the milk, and then culturing the sample at over 80 degrees for 48 hours. This process bears no relation to how the milk is handled in the real world, and goes a long way towards explaining why no-one gets sick from the "contaminated" milk.
Also, printed on our lab results is the temperature of the milk being tested.
While I do not have any objection to any variety of testing, whether required by the State or requested by a customer, I do have considerable objection to inaccuracy of any degree.
As most permitted raw milk farmers we work ardously to maintain the utmost health of our herd, barn and milking parlor.
If we cannot trust test results how would we ever know if there was a true problem and/or how to resolve the issue?
Interesting to me that most of our local friends and long time farmers know exactly why we are being subjected to such annoyance. Needless to say, they won't be applying for raw milk permits. These folks were raised in farm families long before we came to Worcester, and were all raised on real milk.
David, thank you for printing the truth.
Great idea about the video - our trucker decided to pick up at 2 am - we can't be there at that hour , tho we will be insisting on a more "normal" time for pick-up simply because we don't like people on our property at that hour.
The samples are stored in the back of the truck in a "cooler" and travel around with the truck to the different stops until it gets to the creamery, so has ample opportunities for things to go wrong.
We have also had issues with our load testing positive for antibiotics which turned out to be the new extra sensitive digital testing equipment the lab recently acquired - we have Jerseys and the high butterfat triggered false positives. It took the lab a while to admit that and several calls to the equipment manufacturer ... so when the state insists on a "new test" or "upgrade" to more sensitive equipment we hold our breath for the next mess-up.
The next issue is a lack of true independent labs. Many are affiliated with govt. grant colleges and are interconnected. Research them out well. And though I do not disagree with students working in the labs - I think they need to be monitored very closely as they are after all still learning and our livelihoods are affected by their mistakes. I just hope someone is teaching them to care.
Do you happen to know if the tests in this situation were the same? I can appreciate the frustration of finding "a little bit" of something, but if the tests in question were actually different tests and one found nothing and one "a little bit," how can we really compare the two results? What if one was a screening test?
Amanda
To the best of my knowledge, the tests for listeria either shows its presence or not. There are specific tests that cam be done to determine the quantitative amount of listeria and/or viability of cells. These specific tests are not routine as per the zero tolerance law, but can be done.
There was a "suspicious buzz" amongst raw milk farmers at the time of our testing. To protect ourselves further, we also took a sample 24 hours later from another milking and had that tested. Again, it was negative.
Can you use the same lab as the state, perhaps under another name?
Do you happen to know if your lab at least cultures the sample for as long?
Amanda