A favorite tactic of jailers is to make prisoners clean up their mess after rebellious behavior. The idea is to humiliate them, in hopes they won’t ever again contemplate standing up to their jailers. You get that feeling of the inmates being humiliated when you watch a video of Georgia consumers earlier this week being forced to pour out the milk they previously paid a South Carolina dairy $5 a gallon for.
Sure, the consumers are being defiant, but the message of humiliation and exasperation pervade.
Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. had advised Eric Wagoner, the organizer of the buying club that shipped the milk from South Carolina to buyers in Georgia, to video the execution of a Georgia Department of Agriculture order that confiscated raw milk be destroyed by Wagoner, supposedly in violation of federal prohibitions on interstate raw milk sales (following my Oct. 15 post describing the confiscation). As you can see from the video, a number of consumers took him at his word, and the YouTube video is one of several recordings made of the event. (I hope to have additional footage upcoming.)
As a number of us have said on previous occasions here, a picture is worth a thousand words. While this video is rough, it communicates more vividly than anyone can in words the implications of government interference in our nutritional lives.
Watching the busybody regulators monitor the dumping of food that hard-working people previously paid for can only be described as pathetic. Hopefully it will communicate the craziness of a mentality in which government do-gooders go to outrageous extremes to protect us from ourselves.
The question of whether anything illegal was occurring is unclear, backed up by the fact that Wagoner had been delivering raw milk on behalf of Georgia consumers for five years without interference. No, this was most likely an order executed by the Georgia Department of Agriculture at the behest of their handlers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which wants to close off every possible avenue for consumers to obtain raw milk; in this case, the target is buying clubs, which are organizations that help facilitate delivery of milk from farms directly to consumers, saving them the time and carbon-based energy of fetching it.
There was talk at the milk-pouring on Monday of trying to change Georgia’s prohibition on sale of raw milk for human consumption. I hope consumers follow through, and keep the discussion going. The more the public learns about their government’s obsession with raw milk, the better.
***
There’s some interesting discussion over at the Marler blog following up on his posting that condemns the Weston A. Price Foundation and me. Food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler argues at one point that because I have an important book about raw milk coming out, I should condemn the Weston A. Price Foundation and other raw milk proponents for their positions on contamination of raw milk. I point out that raw milk proponents might disagree on various aspects of the contamination issue, but all agree that the government has no business telling us what foods we can or can’t consume.
I have said repeatedly that raw milk can become contaminated, and that raw dairies should be committed to the highest standards of safety. As I ask on the Marler blog, now that I’ve said it again, what happens next? Do the authorities get off our backs and allow us to drink our milk? No, the feeling I get is that the more you agree with them, the more louder they want you to say it and the more conditions they raise. It never quite comes to a conclusion.
These are the required painful steps toward change. It reminds me of the civil rights movement in Alabama and the south. Martin Luther King would be proud. More pain is coming….just make sure it is shared publically. Keep those cameras ready and charged up.
Mark
The court of appeals in CA ( that was going to hear arguments regarding AB 1735 and the undemocratic legislative sneak attack executed by CDFA in 2007 that changed the colifrom limit ) has dismissed the case. We are stuck with less than 10 coliforms.
The good news is that like any good bacteria we have learned to adapt to the new changes and now pass enough of the tests to support our consumers and consistently supply our 375 CA retail stores with raw milk.
The bad news is that this will discourage new producers from entering the market to support this new emerging demand for CA raw milk. Less than 10 coliforms ( total coliforms not just fecal coliforms ) is one very tough standard for raw milk finished product testing. We have also learned that coliforms have little to do with milking the cows and much more to do with the length of the milk lines and the number of milk pumps used. It has much more to do with handling of milk after milking than anything related to the cow or her udder. So we still test like crazy to assure that no pathogens are in the raw milk….coliforms are a poor test for the presence of pathogens.
Mark
I remain optimistic that these Prohibition-like actions against raw milk will eventually be doomed just as the ones against alcohol were.
You didnt answer the question I asked you about outsourcing over at Marlers blog, so I will ask it again here.
Over this past year, have you outsourced raw milk to meet the demand of selling your raw milk products? Have any of your raw milk products been packaged with the OPDC label, but created from outsourced raw milk? The products Im referring to are butter, cream, qephor, & cheese; not fluid raw milk.
The same question goes for colostrum also. Over this past year, have you outsourced colostrum and bottled it with the OPDC label?
Mary McGonigle-Martin
I loved the little kids’s comments; the "Food Freedom" t-shirts, and the commentary was excellent and informative.
I wouldn’t think the behavior of the govt people would humiliate the consumers, I would expect it brings forth anger. And when there is anger, no one listens nor learns anything. Unjust treatment never wins. Wasting hard earned money and good food, tsk tsk. Shame on the govt. This will not sway people to even listen, only alienate them further from tptb.
"Bill Marler – October 22, 2009 7:24 AM
David – you most certainly do have a moral obligation to tell the truth. You, WPA, Mark and other loud proponents of Raw Milk, as leaders of this movement, have an obligation to clearly make the public aware of both the pros and cons of consuming Raw Milk."
David,
If you have a "moral obligation" to make the public aware of both pros & cons of consuming raw milk, who has the "moral obligation" for the chemically laden processed phoods? Where is the fairness?
I think I have answered this question several times and in several places. But….no problem I will answer it again.
In California all Grade A Raw Market milk must come from TB tested and CDFA approved cows. We do not outsource raw milk to make our Grade A products. Yes…in 2006 we did buy some colostrum ( not a grade a product but rather a DHS dietary supplement )from other organic dairies to meet our demand. Yes…in the past we have bought some raw milk from other grass fed raw milk dairies to make some of our truly raw cheddar cheese ( which is aged for 60 days and allowed to be sold across state lines by the FDA and not a Grade A product either ). At present ( and for quite some time ) OPDC only makes our products from our own raw milk. This is what I have said in the past and the story is still the same.
As to Sylvia’s statement about the moral obligation to tell the truth….you are absolutely right.
Each week I make formal presentations all arround the state of CA at the invitation of groups of consumers and other interested people. The truth is so much more compelling than a doctored up story or half truths. We tell people the truth in all of its colors. Yes raw milk has been dangerous in the past and can be in the present…but there is also the untold story of raw milk and its safety and purity. I also share information about deaths from pastuerized milk and dairy products. There have been hundreds of deaths from pastuerized dairy products in the past 20 years. Both stories must be told and I do. I also tell people about the tragedy of the rampant immune depression in the USA( caused directly by the loss of gut biodioversity ) that take tens of thousands of lives every year because of antibiotics and depressed immunity…..I explain how Raw Milk Kefir and raw milk can help fix that tragedy…and it does. See http://www.californiarawmilk.org for the story straight from the consumers mouths themselves. I do not know any of these people and they all swear to the healing qualities of raw milk. Asthma, IBS, Ulcers, Osteoporosis, ear infections, nasal drainage ( snotty noses ) colds etc,….all dramatically improved or gone. This is not a dream or some make believe snake oil story land ….these are the voices of the CA raw milk consumers. If raw milk was snake oil it would not sell twice.
Sales of raw milk in CA have never been higher and I have not had more requests to "Share the Raw Milk Secret". Sorry guys raw milk is seriously for real and Marler and those that dislike this consumer choice will just have to tolerate the democracy of it all.
Raw milk is not perfect…but it is damn close.
Mark
Thank you for the reply. What about the cream you outsourced in the past? You know, the batch that had listeria. You left that off the list. What were you using that for–butter?
So in the past you outsourced for colostrum, milk for cheese and cream for ? But it was all bottled with the OPDC label. Did you use a different set of labels indicating the product was not made from your cows milk/colostrum? If you didnt, I think you could see how some people might interpret these actions as deceitful advertizing, as well as unethical business practices.
Thank you for clarifying that youve stopped the practice of outsourcing. People buying products with the OPDC label assume the milk it was made from came from your cows.
Mary
Marler recently responded (www.marlerblog.com/2009/10/articles/lawyer-oped/comparing-the-food-safety-record-of-pasteurized-and-raw-milk-products-part-3/), claiming that this bias was a major misconception of the Weston A. Price Foundation and concluding that pasteurized milk is much safer to drink than raw milk.
Marlers conclusion rests on three flawed assumptions:
1. No bias against raw milk exists in the literature because health officials investigate illnesses traced to raw milk using the same approaches they use to investigate illnesses traced to any other food.
2. It is not necessary to demonstrate that raw milk is contaminated with a pathogen in order to demonstrate that it is responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.
3. CDC data shows that raw milk products are responsible for the majority of milk-related outbreaks.
These arguments miss the basic point. We identified the following as the two most important questions:
First, is raw milk uniquely dangerous, such that it should be singled out for prohibition or damaging regulation?
Second, is there a reason why producers and consumers should not have the liberty to engage in voluntary exchanges without lawyers and bureaucrats telling them what to eat and drink?
In order to show that raw milk is uniquely dangerous, its safety should be compared to that of all foods, including deli meats, hot dogs, spinach, and other foods to which outbreaks of foodborne illness are often attributed but whose rightful place in the free market no one ever questions. Unless raw milk is unique among all foods in the supposed danger it presents, it should not be singled out. Informed consumers, moreover, must have the basic freedom to choose for themselves what foods to consume.
In addition to ignoring these vital questions, Marlers three arguments are fundamentally flawed, and we will address each of them below.
A Question of Bias
Foodborne illnesses, especially those caused by such organisms as Campylobacter Jejuni, E. coli 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enteritidis, can often result in serious and even permanent harm to victims with underlying illnesses or other conditions predisposing them to these risks. Any food, whether raw or pasteurized, carries some risk of contamination. To protect these victims from such pernicious effects and to protect the general population and our society from wasted time and resources due to milder and more common forms of foodborne illness, we thus consider it imperative that farmers produce raw milk and raw milk products in accordance with the most conscientious standards, from grass-feeding to proper sanitation of bottling equipment. While raw milk contains numerous built in safety mechanisms (most of which are compromised or destroyed by pasteurization), this safety system can be overwhelmed in extreme situations, such as in confinement dairies where cows are fed a diet based or grains, or where large amounts of pathogens from contaminated water or manure inadvertently get into the milk.
Furthermore, while we believe that raw milk is itself protective against systemic infection, we still have the responsibility as a society to further investigate how individuals can maximize their immunity to foodborne illness.
The fact that pasteurized milk, deli meats, spinach, and many other commonly consumed foods present as great a risk or perhaps an even greater risk than raw milk does not excuse farmers from bearing responsibility for their own raw milk products. As we have shown in our initial response to Marler, however, one cannot use the commonality of publications in the peer-reviewed literature to make a quantitative claim about how dangerous raw milk is. This is, first of all, because most of these publications lack sufficient evidence to conclude that raw milk in fact caused the outbreak. In cases where an outbreak genuinely points to raw milk, moreover, the investigation is more likely to be published simply because outbreaks due to raw milk are more traceable and containable than outbreaks due to other foods, thus making raw milk a safer and more accountable food.
Marler acknowledges that not all foodborne illnesses are reported to the CDC and that some outbreaks are investigated more intensively than others at the local level, but claims that since this is true of investigations involving both raw and pasteurized milk, there is no indication of a systematic bias against raw milk.
Ironically, the three examples Marler gives of outbreaks not listed in CDC databases are an outbreak sickening over 200,000 people linked to pasteurized ice cream, an outbreak sickening 1,644 people linked to pasteurized milk, and an outbreak sickening eight people linked to raw milk. Had he included these three outbreaks in his analysis, Marler would clearly tip the tables in favor of raw milk.
Marler also fails to convey just how few foodborne illnesses are actually reported. If most illnesses were reported, we could more reasonably assume that the proportion of outbreaks reported for a given food reflects the proportion of outbreaks actually attributed to that food. According to the CDC estimates cited in our review, however, less than one out of every thousand cases of foodborne illness is reported. This means that over 99.9 percent of foodborne illnesses go unreported.
To claim that the percentage of reported outbreaks traced to raw milk represents the percentage of actual outbreaks truly caused by raw milk when the reported outbreaks are estimated to represent such a small sample of the total denies all the basic principles of statistics and experimental science. Statisticians consider reported data in a sample of the population to reflect what is actually happening in the true population if and only if the sample is a random sample. Similarly, in order to determine whether a treatment is effective, experimental scientists will randomly assign people to a treatment or to a placebo. The opposite of this random assignment is self-selection. No one gives real credence to the figures generated by internet polls where whoever wants to vote can vote. The voters cannot be trusted to be a random sample of the population. No one would trust a study in which people chose themselves whether to take a treatment or a placebo because the treatment group would not be a random sample of the study population. Likewise, if 0.1 percent of foodborne illnesses are self-reported or physician-reported to the CDC, we cannot trust these figures to be a random sample of all foodborne illnesses.
In our initial review, we never claimed that investigations of illnesses tied to raw milk are conducted differently than investigations of illnesses tied to other foods. Instead, we pointed out how strong biases can inadvertently be incorporated into investigations because most investigators are thoroughly convinced that raw milk poses a major threat to public health, and thus they often rush to judgment to implicate raw milk even when the science is not fully supportive. We gave several examples of how this view could bias both the reporting and investigation of foodborne illness. Since so few illnesses are reported and investigated, the mere potential for bias precludes us from drawing any valid statistical conclusions from CDC databases or the peer-reviewed literature.
Ironically, some of this reporting bias may actually reflect a level of accountability unique to raw milk, which actually makes it a very safe product. Marler treats the foodborne illness statistics he uses as if they were either complete data for the population or data from a true random sample of the population. They are neither. All we can infer from them is how often some illnesses are reported to involve raw milk or pasteurized milk. In order to determine how often illnesses are truly attributable to raw milk, pasteurized milk, and the many other foods to which illnesses can be attributed, we would need quality scientific data for the other 99.9 percent of foodborne illnesses that the CDC estimates go unreported.
The Case of the Missing Pathogen
Marler claims that while isolation of the outbreak strain from a food product provides The Smoking Gun, it is not a requirement to take action to prevent new illnesses. He notes that it is often not possible to isolate the outbreak strain, either because there is no contaminated food left to test or because the pathogen already died-off in the leftover milk.
One of the examples in which Campylobacter jejuni was claimed to have died off in milk samples before testing was a paper published by Hutchinson and colleagues in 1985. They could not culture C. jejuni under the sterile laboratory conditions usually used to isolate pathogens and could only obtain a positive result if they performed the isolation procedure in the open air on the farm. They claimed that C. jejuni was unable to tolerate the natural antibacterial effect of fresh milk for the several hours it took to transport the milk to the lab. Neither these authors nor Marler have been able to explain how C. jejuni can survive long enough in milk to cause human illness if it cannot survive for several hours during transportation to a laboratory.
It is certainly true that failure to culture the outbreak strain from a food sample does not in and of itself prove that the food did not cause the outbreak. Investigators will blame raw milk, however, even when the milk tests negative and other foods test positive. In 1987, for example, Schmid and colleagues (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3598217? ) blamed an outbreak of C. jejuni on raw milk when all of the raw milk tested negative and 360 samples of locally sold chicken tested positive!
In many other cases, investigators who fail to find the pathogen responsible for the outbreak in any milk samples will nevertheless blame raw milk for the outbreak without testing any other foods, nor the water on the farm, simply because some of those who became ill drank raw milk. In how many cases would they have found the locally sold chicken or other locally sold foods to be contaminated? We do not know the answer to this question because oftentimes once the investigators generate even the semblance of a connection between the outbreak and raw milk consumption, they stop looking any further. In these cases, not only is raw milk improperly blamed, but the true cause of the outbreak is never identified.
What, If Anything, Can We Learn From the CDC Data?
Marler claims that the CDC data show that although only one percent of consumers drink raw milk in the United States, it is responsible for over 50 percent of all milk-associated outbreaks. Marler not only incorrectly treats the small sample of reported statistics as representative of the total number of outbreaks, but makes an additional error by choosing to examine the number of outbreaks rather than the number of people who became ill. Marler claims that outbreaks associated with pasteurized milk will be larger simply due to the greater distribution of that product. He therefore presents a pie chart in which the majority of the area is covered by raw milk-associated outbreaks.
This represents a further lack of understanding and misuse of statistics. We cannot compare the percentage of individuals who drink raw milk to the percentage of groups who become ill. We must compare the percentage of individuals who drink raw milk to the percentage of individuals who become ill from drinking raw milk. Raw milk, according to the CDC figures, is associated with just over nine percent of all milk-associated foodborne illnesses. These figures still indicate a disproportionate share, but over five times less disproportionate than Marlers analysis suggests. If Marler presented his pie chart based on the percentage of individual illnesses, over 90 percent of the area in the chart would be covered with illnesses attributed to pasteurized milk.
There are two basic problems with Marlers analysis. First, we really do not know how many people drink raw milk. The one-percent figure is derived from estimates by state governments for which the authors of the original publication by Headrick and colleagues in 1998 presented no evidence. This group conducted a more reliable phone survey (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1381950/?) the previous year, concluding that 3.2 percent of Californians drink raw milk, but this study was limited to only one state. Second, as discussed before, 99.9 percent of foodborne illnesses are not reported and those that are reported are not a random sample of the total. We cannot accurately estimate from these figures what percentage of foodborne illnesses are truly caused by any given food. Even among the outbreaks reported, we have demonstrated that most of the outbreaks investigators have attributed to raw milk have lacked sufficient evidence to implicate raw milk.
The Real Question
The real question, which Marler has yet to answer, is what scientific evidence can justify the singling out of raw milk from among all other foods for prohibition or damaging regulation when nearly all observers including Marler himself agree that foods other than milk (raw or pasteurized) cause in excess of 99 percent of the CDC-estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness that occur in the US every year. Our conclusion from our initial review, then, still stands:
According to the founding documents of the United States, personal liberties are self-evident and inalienable rights, not privileges endowed by state health departments, federal bureaucracies, or personal injury lawyers. There is no scientific evidence to justify the singling out of raw milk from among other foods for prohibition or damaging regulation, and there is no legitimate constitutional or philosophical basis on which Americans or anyone else should be deprived of the basic human right to determine what to eat and drink.
Sally Fallon Morell
Weston A. Price Foundation
Well, I hope the old saying "it’s darkest before the dawn" holds true for raw milk here in Georgia. If so there should be good raw milk news on the horizon…though I wouldn’t hold my breath as long as Tommy Irvin remains our state agriculture commissioner.
I do wonder one thing about the customers being forced to pour out their own milk. I would have to ask, "Doesn’t anyone have some guts?"
Not having been there, and not owning one of the gallons of milk in question, it is easy for me to say this, but why oh why didn’t SOMEONE, upon getting their hands on their milk, say to the raw milk gestapo, "This is my milk, bought by me in a state where raw milk for human consumption is legal, and I’m NOT pouring it out. I’m taking a big swig and then taking it home."
"Stop me if you wish, arrest me if you want, but remember, it’s all on video, and I won’t be going quietly."
All this is easy for me to say from the comfort of my home, behind my laptop, but I can say I honestly wish I had been in a position to do just that.
Well, in closing let me say I’m glad to be back. I spent most of the last half of last year in a hospital bed, and my house burned down in the midst of all that…and, unfortunately I had to get rid of the goats and chickens because I was physically unable to care for them, however…
This summer has been a time of rebuilding. Rebuilding my body physically and rebuilding my home. In the spring of 2010 the goats, chickens, and associated products will return…without the state’s blessing. In the meantime I’ll be visiting here often, and folks can follow the doings at the farm at www,juicymaters.com
Have a FANTASTIC day!
Bob Hayles
Welcome back. How traumatic for you! Hope you and yours have a speedy recovery. Be good to you.
Bob, you’ll see in the second part of the video that we did open several gallons and everyone present had plenty to drink — except the three state and federal agents, of course. We did offer, but I guess they weren’t thirsty. They verbally told us several times that we weren’t allowed to do that, but finally relented and told us we could, but that it couldn’t leave the immediate premises. I was not allowed to take my own personally purchased two gallons and put them in my own refrigerator. Yes, we could have physically forced our way past them with milk, but none of us there were interested in physical force.
It’s called civil disobedience, and it’s the only thing that will secure our rights to make our own nutritional choices rather than having those choices made for us by the nanny state.
"What exactly do opponents want of us?"
Our situation always reminds me of the fable about the Emperor’s new clothes.http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Emperors-New-Clothes.htm by Hans Christian Andersen.Opponents aren’t interested in having a fruitful discussion.When anyone on this blog brings up information that clearly shows that "the emporor has no clothes",the opponents want simply to distract attention from the information by holding up a video of a suffering child or by making unsupported accusations of the filth in milk that hasn’t been heat treated.The point is to divert our attention.If we are left to look at the evidence,it becomes clear that the health department and department of Agriculture are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
If we were allowed an uninterrupted inspection of the facts,it would become clear that not only have the authorities distorted the figures about food poisoning outbreaks,they have also deceived us about their ability to detect and trace the "pathogens".The research about the ability of bacteria to respond very quickly to changes in it’s environment shows us that detecting and matching one bacterium to another is not anything like matching the fingerprints found at a crime scene to those of a suspect.Bacteria have the ability to rapidly change their DNA to adapt to changes in their environment.When a sample of bacteria is taken from someone’s stool and placed on an agar culture plate,it’s environment has suddenly changed drastically.Will it mutate?Research shows us that it will at a very high rate.Most of the original sample might die.The ones that survive are more likely to be mutations than they are to be the same as the original sample.It is the big problem with all attempts to make observations.The act of observing a phenomenon,has an influence on what is observed.If we find e coli 0157:H7 on the culture plate ,does that mean it was in the original sample or did it happen to be one of the mutations that survived better in the new environment?Since the environment was chosen to favor the growth of 0157:H7,it is not surprising when it is found on the culture plate.It would be surprising if it was not found.Bacteria can change from common,beneficial e coli into virulent e coli 0157:H7 as quickly as Clark Kent could step into a phone booth and emerge as Superman.The stress of a sudden change in environment also has the effect of a tendency for the bacteria to take a more virulent form.As Masanobu Fukuoka so eloquently put it, If we throw Mother Nature out the window, she comes back in the door with a pitchfork.
We have a basic disagreement with the authorities about the nature of microbes.As in the fable about the emporor’s new clothes,they are asking us to trust them.They are weaving a fantastical tale about their understanding of microbes and the amazing powers of microbes.When we rely on our own senses,we see something different.We hear on this blog the message that the health care system is "upside down",the germ theory of disease is false,we need to end the war metaphor in understanding microbes.It tends to become a chant— "the emporor has no clothes".The emporor’s minions need to stop the chant and distract attention away from a close inspection of the emporor’s new clothes.
Perhaps you have stronger guts than those present, many of us parents with children, but we saw nothing to be gained by physically disobeying their direct commands and threats. It was all documented, we can move forward with that, and that was enough for us for that day.
Ask them to put that in writing and and sign their name to that as being true.They should be able to tell you what law would make it a felony.Chances are excellent that this is a bluff.If it is ,then they are the ones committing a felony.The signed statement is evidence of gross negligence or fraud if it proves to be untrue.Even if you do dump the milk,they are still guilty of fraud and they should be charged with that offense.They had you destroy your own milk so they could not be held liable for it’s destruction,but since you did so under threat they are still liable for the destruction of your property.These people are aware of their liabilities under the law.If they see that you know them too,you can call their bluff.
Raw milk is thus nestled in the federal scheme among mulluscan shellfish, turtles, psittacine birds and garbage as a potential source of communicable disease requiring quarantine and thus effectively banned in any interstate context.
As incredible as all this seems for a food, it appears to be the best that the FDA could muster as its statutory authority following the Washington, DC district court judge’s order in 1987 that FDA create an order banning interstate sales of raw milk.
I feel it as sure as it is turning fall and the leaves are turning colors. Change is happening. The Feds feel it and the states feel it. When people resist, people at the FDA and states feel it…it is human. They feel the emotion and the purpose of it all. Teach the inspectors the science behind our passion. Convince them with humanity and hard facts. Show them the deaths from immune depression and pastuerized milk products. Show them the data. Put it in their faces as you explain your deep feelings about raw milk and gut immunity and biodiversity
The NIH and Human Bionome project scientists are saying it in their research. The political leaders of the FDA are losing their footing and support. It is just a matter of time.
Even the GOT MILK CMAB researchers in CA have found in their own multimillion dollar studies of Raw Breast milk that it is the "bioactive" components that are so critical and health giving. By definition those are the same components that are changed and destroyed in the five log caldren of Pastuerization.
Our human imunity is burning at the stake and the scientists at the NIH know why….it is the lack of gut biodiversity. America has a dead gut and because the gut is the seat of our health…America is dying gut first.
David you are so right…change is in the air. Keep on teaching and preaching. Teach the inspectors and teach the moms and dads…. feed the kids raw milk and witness change happen. Gut ecosystems are the foundations of human health. There is no denying it.
When doctors call OPDC to get advice on how to treat IBS and Crohns and Asthma because pharma is hurting their patients…..change is in the air.
Take the pain as a badge of honor and keep pushing!!
Keep those cameras rollin…..
Mark
I wonder if refusing to pour out the milk would be a crime?Have the authorities claimed ownership of the milk?If it is theirs shouldn’t they be the ones to destroy it?Can they lawfully dispose of a hazardous substance on land that does not belong to them?Did they give you an order to destroy the milk?Was this a court order?I would not do what authorities tell me to do,ever.I would do what the law tells me is my responsibility as soon as I have the information I need to know what the law says.On the other hand,I would do what they told me to do ,if they threatened me.Then, I would make it clear that I was doing what I was told under protest and duress.If they give you an order and you comply,you have just agreed that they do have the authority to give you orders.We are supposed to live in a society governed by the rule of law.The law is for our protection.The authorities are bound by it too.
Will I be dressing up as a Jersey cow in honor of my last ever lactation cycle (I am 40 after all and surely done with child-bearing)?
Will I dress up as an outsourcing bogeyman and inspect everyone’s butter?
Will I dress up as a Listeria bacterium trying to cross the placenta?
Will I dress up as an immunoglobulin or perhaps an immuno-goblin?
Stay tuned. I’ll send out a Halloween email to the white papers list. (If you have received raw milk emails from me in the past, you’ll get one. If you haven’t, you can sign up on the raw milk white papers site.)
Amanda