Upsetting the Apple Cart: MI Group Verdict on Raw Milk—Yes on Competitive Inhibition, Yes on Lactose Intolerance, Yes on Helping Pregnant Moms, Yes on Reducing Asthma

Richard Hebron, the Michigan farmer victimized by a sting operation in 2006, which led to new conclusions about the benefits of raw milk. Did you ever think you’d see this statement endorsed by dairy regulators?

“Milk fresh from the cow is a complete, living, functional food…the full benefits…are only realized when all of these components function as a complex interdependent and balanced process.”

Or how about this:

“Of all the milk constituents, the milk fat globule is the most drastically altered by the combination of pasteurization and homogenization.”

After endless reassurances from scientists and other officials in public health, agriculture, medicine, and government that there’s no difference between pasteurized and unpasteurized milk, we are now being told something entirely different by an organization that includes top dairy regulators and an agriculture university dean (along with a number of raw milk proponents). The organization is the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup, which includes among its members the two top dairy officials of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and a dean of the Michigan State University College of Agriculture.

The Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup, which I described in a previous post, is a committee that grew out of the ashes of the bizarre “string operation” against Michigan farmer Richard Hebron in October 2006. After forcibly confiscating $8,000-plus worth of dairy products the farmer was delivering to members of Ann Arbor’s Family Farms Co-op, Michigan’s Department of Agriculture sought to have Richard indicted on criminal charges. Instead, a county prosecutor refused to go forward with the case, and pushed the department to settle with Richard. As part of the settlement, the department agreed to allow herdshare arrangements. Subsequently, the department’s two top dairy officials, Katherine Fedder, who ordered the investigation and subsequent raid on Richard Hebron; and Susan Esser, agreed to join the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup, which is charged with answering the question: Where do we want to be in three to five years on access to fresh unpasteurized whole milk.

The workgroup has moved systematically, some might say tediously, to address ten topics relating to the question of access to raw milk. When it started meeting in early 2007, it expected to get through the topics in 18 months. Now, nearly three years later, it has formally addressed only two of the ten topics.

The statements I quoted from above come from the second topic and was just posted in recent weeks, on the subject of “Benefits and Values.” Part of the challenge facing the workgroup is that each of its eleven members must approve each and every word of each topic discussion. No majority-rules here. That’s the bad news in terms of pace, but it’s also the good news in terms of buy-in and impact. You know that the government and ag people have reviewed and signed off on everything posted.

From that viewpoint, the posting on Benefits and Value is remarkable, coming from the first state in the nation to require pasteurization, and prohibit the sale of raw milk, back in 1947. It provides detailed explanations in response to the questions: “What are the additional benefits of milk fresh from the cow?” and “What is the impact of pasteurization on fresh unpasteurized whole milk’s value?”

The posting never explicitly states what I say in my heading above—that raw milk is superior—but it’s impossible not to draw that conclusion from reading through the list of eleven criteria that are listed as “the additional benefits of milk fresh from the cow.” These include twenty “well characterized intrinsic enzymes”, “immune system enhancers,” and “antibacterial components.”

It comes out positively on four of the most explosive issues in the debate over the nutritional benefits and special properties of raw milk:

1. Competitive inhibition: It says raw milk contains “microorganisms that suppress pathogens by competitive mechanisms.”
2. Lactose intolerance: “Many people with professionally diagnosed lactose intolerance do not have the symptoms of this condition, even when consuming large amounts of fresh milk.”
3. Pregnant moms: There’s “enhancement of mother’s breast milk quality by including fresh milk in her diet.”
4. Reducing asthma and allergies: “Numerous well-controlled studies have shown the independent effect of drinking fresh milk on reducing asthma and childhood rhinitis in general and specifically in childhood allergic rhinitis.

On and on it goes:

“There are large numbers of different bacteria present in fresh milk. Some of these are included in the Standard Plate Count test; others do not grow under those culture conditions and so are not counted as a part of the test.  Both the total numbers and the diversity of bacterial types (genus and species) are variable.  Most of these bacteria are beneficial.”

“Therefore, milk is inherently a prebiotic since it contains lactose and numerous other components that beneficial bacteria can utilize.”

And I haven’t even addressed the section on “the impact of pasteurization,” but it’s equally devastating for the anti-raw-milk lobby. Here, the strong inference is that pasteurization offsets many of raw milk’s benefits. It concludes that pasteurization adversely affects milk's proteins, carbohydrates, and enzymes. It also states that pasteurization un-does the immune-building benefits of raw milk: “Cell-mediated immune mechanisms rely on living somatic cells, but pasteurization kills those cells, losing that effect.”

When you think, these findings are part of what came out of the sting operation against Richard Hebron, you realize that life does work in strange ways. Guess I can’t wait for the workgroup to complete the next eight sections of its agenda.

***

I suspect the Michigan workgroup’s conclusions about the benefits of raw milk will have a wide impact. Initially, they may raise the decibel level of the debate (if that’s possible), especially as regards the farmer-vs-farmer side. I have to admit, I was caught off-guard by the intensity of the debate associated with the upheaval at Organic Valley co-op, as reflected in the comments on my previous post. Thanks to lola granola for the insights into what’s happening at Organic Valley.

The farmer-vs-farmer aspect of this mirrors to some extent the discussions over raw milk’s risks, as noted by Lykke and Sylvia, and the issue of rights, as noted by Bob Hayles and Miguel. But there’s a whole separate dimension related to the role of the farmer in the marketplace. Most farmers been so marginalized, they have nothing to say about pricing and distribution of not only milk, but most other farm products. And if Organic Valley takes the radical step of distributing raw milk, it may, as Milk Farmer suggests, potentially marginalize even the growing cadre of raw dairy producers.

In this debate as well as others, we see divisions among supporters of raw milk, especially between what might be called moderates and strict constructionists--those who are open to compromise with regulators, and those who want the regulators removed from the process and the marketplace. The division is asserting itself in the debate over the role of legislation to loosen the tight regulation of raw milk in Wisconsin.

But this issue isn’t open-and-shut—too much water under the dam to just let the established order of the agriculture marketplace take over. A chaotic time seems to be in store.

Comments

2 Thumbs Down

"Competitive inhibition: It says raw milk contains “microorganisms that suppress pathogens by competitive mechanisms.”

This statement is taken out of context, probably in order to mislead consumers into not considering the risks when making a decision.

The MI site on benefits is pretty to look at, but it does not represent appropriate (or ethical) education of consumers - it is one-sided without any information on risks. The site does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and should be taken down until they finish the questions on risks. The consumer is not making an informed choice if given only information on benefits (much of it anecdotal and incomplete). I certainly won't use or recommend the link as it stands now, regardless of who in public health or ag supposedly signed off on it.

[Sylvia Gibson]

David,

The consumer isn't able to, or it is extremely difficult for them to make an informed choice when the hazards of consuming processed/chemically laden/adulterated phoods are pushed onto them. Again,why is raw milk being singled out? As stated numerous times, there are many other foods that have higher contamination rates.

http://www.dairyreporter.com/Safety-Hygiene/US-dairy-industry-plea-to-boost-raw-milk-regulation

[Steve Bemis]

I think it would be unfortunate to pigeon-hole the work of this Committee as being only one thing. It certainly is not presented as a simple evaluation of competitive inhibition. The link, when printed out, runs (as I remember) in excess of 17 pages, and is crammed with information. My impression in looking at the copious footnotes is that it is scrupulously objective and does not urge any particular conclusion. In fact there are impressive amounts of information which in my eyes reinforce the value of all milk, including pasteurized (although, if I had no access to raw milk I would choose pasteurized, non-homogenized milk which is legal for sale almost everywhere, and which appears to be significantly better than milk which is both pasteurized and homogenized). The Committee's work has much value in simply bringing together, in one place, much information which has been floating around piecemeal - much of it discussed on this blog. This alone would argue against its embargo at this time.

Steve,

I wanted to like the MI website (believe me - it would be great to have a model collaboration), but the site is not valuable as an educational tool snce they present only benefits and no discussion of risks. This strikes me as political - someone(s) decided to push public release of the preliminary work for some kind of gain?

I think they should take it down until complete.

[Bob "BubbaBozo" Hayles]

Lykke...quit being an...er...jerk. Its a report that few in the general public will read. Its not meant to be educational literature for the buying public.

If you MUST get your panties in a wad over a lack of education for the public, why not raise hell that there is no sign at the deli counter and no required label on deli meats that states, "The CDC has determined that of all foods sold in the United States, deli meat is the most dangerous, causing the most illness and death."?

Your one sided hipocritical BS is nauseating.

Bob Hayles
http://www.juicymaters.com

EVERY time you are in contact with a government bureaucrat or elected official, remind them, "We don't work for you. You work for US."

Bob,

What are you talking about? When did deli meats last cause HUS in children? Or, paralysis from Campylobacter? There are messages about deli meats and risk of listeriosis for pregnant women, though I agree they could be made clearer.

When you consider the small number of people who drink raw milk, it is statistically a high risk food. A better comparison would be raw ground beef, raw sprouts, and raw oysters or other seafood. But, those foods are not generally marketed for children and the immunocompromised.

Good point though on the educational materials - probably no one reads them anyway other than those who wrote them. That's the limitaton of education and why we need regulation.

[Bob "BubbaBozo" Hayles]

Lykke...you pick a couple of your fav diseases and try to apply it to all foods...bottom line, a mother doesn't give a damn what killed her kid...just that he/she died, and the FACT is that the CDC says deli meat is the most dangerous food in America, period. Where is your outrage?

As for your argument re regulation vs education, wrong again. If the educational info is provided and the buying public doesn't bother to avail themselves of it, then let them buy the nanny state approved garbage that passes for food. Its not the governments job to protect one from one's own stupidity.

I've asked you before, and I'll continue to ask, as I hounded McAffee about outrsourcing...WHERE in the constitution does it give the government the right deny people their own nutritional choice?

You refuse to answer because you can't...without losing the argument.

Geeze at the nanny state sheeple...

Bob Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com

When you are in contact with any elected official, remind them that , "We don't work for you. You work for US."

[Blair McMorran]

Yes, I say yes! Risky? Yes. But so is any real food - education is key. Lykke, sorry to tell you but Americans are able to smell their way to safety -- same as you are. They deserve to reclaim their innate sensibilities, without the control of government.

Let's give them a choice, and some freedom to choose, and some responsibility with that choice. You want and deserve that same freedom. We're not stupid. We don't need your protection. We need your support.
-Blair

Bob,

Your deli meat comparison still makes no sense (where do you get your statistics)? Consumers were on the hill recently (relating to food safety bills) yelling about ground beef, produce, peanut butter paste, and imported foods contaminated with melamiine, as primary examples.

I think your view that there should be no regulations for safe food is in the minority. Even herdshare "owners" have sued the farmer after getting sick. The People think safe food is part of the infrastructure like roads, water, and sewers.

Blair,

I am an advocate of choice including raw milk. And, soda pop (some want to ban it from schools). But, that doesn't translate into a free-for-all with industry putting whatever they choose up for sale, making false marketing claims, and ignoring consumer safety.

BTW, here's how China dealt with their milk scandal. I'm glad I live in the US.

China executed a dairy farmer and a milk salesman Tuesday for their roles in the sale of contaminated baby formula...

http://cbs5.com/national/china.execution.milk.2.1332844.html

[Blair McMorran]

Well, thus far we aren't China - we're still USA - admitted, the boundaries are blurring....because we let tptb dictate. Lykke, be careful what you wish for. The only way to health is small local food systems. .

Get big or get out? No - get small and responsible or watch your children's health deteriorate, and your freedom to choose die. Our forefathers drank raw milk, grew their own vegetables - they did not anticipate the USDA or the FDA decimating God's food in lieu of global marketing opportunities. Back then, real food came from local farms.

And they had full mental capacity, great genius, and terrific spirit!
If you win this argument, you will destroy our vitality. Indeed, you already have.

-Blair

[Bob "BubbaBozo" Hayles]

Like hell he has.

"If you win this argument, you will destroy our vitality. Indeed, you already have."

But, I buy local often, support a CSA, and grow seasonal veggies in a home garden. I see consumer safety as an integral part of the system - large or small, how does that destroy vitality?

[Steve Bemis]

Lykke - at the rate they are going, if they take it down until complete we won't see anything for another couple of years....:-) (no offense to the participants, since I am not on the Comimittee - they are clearly working diligently and well together, and I'll bet none of them is getting much if anything for their time). My little knowledge of their process is that EVERYTHING,and I'll bet this includes the list of topics and their order, has been the subject of thorough discussion and reflects the group's agreement. There are obvious implications to any order which might have been chosen, but I doubt very much the order reflects someone's sub-rosa political agenda. And, as others have commented, I doubt the site will be directly utilized by consumers. It will be up to those who may use the site as a resource, to use it responsibly recognizing that it is a work in progress.

[lola granola]

"There are messages about deli meats and risk of listeriosis for pregnant women, though I agree they could be made clearer."

I've been pregnant three times. When my midwife found out that we sell raw milk, she gave me a lecture about the risks of listeriosis associated with raw milk. Never, ever, did she mention that I could get listeriosis from deli meats and that I should avoid them. There is a double standard at play here, whether or not you want to admit it.

I think that with Lykke we should be reminded of advise that Dave Milano gave this group back on August 3 of this year (it was a great comment, Dave, and I have it taped to the wall next to my computer):

"Do not allow yourselves to be sucked into a political discussion that includes microbiology. That sort of talk should be among individuals only and has no place in the text of federal government rules. Work instead to win back individual rights. The ONLY effective way to do that is to fight government with its own founding documents. Begin with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."

Lykke, the reason there are people shouting for food safety on capital hill is because of an 'enemy' created by our government, real or imagined. I've heard reports that there were 20 USDA vehicles and many USDA employees on the road next to the field where the contaminated spinach came from, one week before the outbreak. False flag terror? Mysteriously, the newspaper article that reported this has disappeared from the internet. The reality is, is that the government stages 'problems' in order to give us the 'solution' - and chances are that the 'solution' will take more of our rights away. David Icke's Problem-Reaction-Solution. How do you know that the whole raw milk fearmongering isn't more of the government's attempt to take our rights away, to take good food away, and to take our health away? If you don't believe it, look up "eugenics" and "UN Agenda 21".

[miguel]

Small scale and local with a direct farmer consumer relationship is the only way to have safe food."Market forces", including regulation, always favor bigger scale businesses.In fact they encourage these businesses to get bigger in order to comply with the increasing costs associated with the regulations.Market forces and regulations have been used to eliminate small,local business.We need to change that.
Lykke,
Is your CSA inspected and regulated? Is your home garden inspected and regulated? Should it be?

[Don Wittlinger]

Lola There is one problem with your post but it is not you nor what you stated you wisely pointed out the big picture. And unless and until one sees the big picture removes their tunnel vision blinders TPTB easily distract and control their opposition. What you pointed out is just to awful for the sheople to accept or believe or acknowledge even the possibility of its existance. But reality is what it is nonetheless.
"There are thousands hacking at the branches of EVIL to one who is striking at the root"
Henery David Thoreau
Raw dairy is the king of all foods hence the war to stamp it out. Debating about good germs and bad germs is not a plan for victory. The only real victory will be our unfettered freedom to choose which is our G-D given right since the begining of Creation.

[Shana Milkie]

Lykke wrote: ". . .The site does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and should be taken down until they finish the questions on risks. . . "

Site taken down? Why should it be censored? These are real results that deserve to be shared. Sure, a disclaimer could be added that the other portions are works in progress. But it makes me shiver that you would recommend closing down a site entirely because it's not "balanced." I don't see the FDA's warnings on the alleged dangers of raw milk being balanced by acknowledging the potential benefits. Should its site be shut down too?

[miguel]

This is just lykke's attempt at distraction.Law is not on lykke's side so the discussion turns back to anything but that.There is no law that says that we need a permit to produce and consume milk in any form we wish to.The PMO authorizes the dept of Ag to issue licenses.That means they are the only ones who can issue a license.It does not mean that you are required to have a license.That a license is required is the dept of Ag's interpretation of the statute.It is not part of any law.If they can intimidate you,sometimes by unlawful threat or actual force,into signing a contract(applying for a license),then you will be legally bound by that contract to only sell your raw milk to a processor.

Why doesn't the PMO require a license?The legislature has to word these statutes very carefully.The wording has to appear to require us to enter a contract in order to produce raw milk without actually doing so.If it clearly required a license it would be unconstitutional and therefore "no law at all".The same is true for all licenses and permits.The actual buyer is the only one who is in a position to make those kind of demands on the producer.

[Sylvia Gibson]

"Competitive inhibition: It says raw milk contains “microorganisms that suppress pathogens by competitive mechanisms.”

"This statement is taken out of context, probably in order to mislead consumers into not considering the risks when making a decision."

Please inform us what context it is meant and site your source.

After giving it some more thought, I think my initial reaction to take down the site until complete is not the best approach. Leave it up - it is what it is, and there is good, researched information. Unfortunately, David used the site as an opportunity to promote over-simplified WAPF dogma and then claim that public health and ag professionals agree with their dogma. Maybe when the risks are finally posted, we'll do the same and write a blog piece saying that raw milk proponents (by being on a group that wrote about risks, regardless of the actual content) similarly embrace FDA dogma on playing Russian roulette. Touche.