A New “Solution” for the Raw Milk Problem? Make Dairies Pay for the Privilege

If those weirdo foodies want unpasteurized milk so badly, we’ll give them raw milk...We’ll just make them pay $50 a gallon.

It sounds a little crazy, I know, but over the last couple weeks, I’ve developed this crazy idea. What if federal and state regulators decided to change the rules on the raw milk issue?

Instead of berating and opposing raw milk, they say they might become accepting, under certain conditions.

What has me thinking that way? A couple things.

When Arkansas turned down a change in raw milk regulations, one of the big excuses was that it would cost too much in ag department manpower to inspect dairies producing raw milk.

Then in Connecticut, there was this initial proposal as part of the effort to eliminate retail sales, to require raw dairies to pay the cost of newly imposed pathogen testing. The Connecticut authorities eventually removed that in the face of dairy opposition, but it’s not certain it will stay removed. (Actually, they removed it for routine testing, but if a dairy is found to have pathogens, all followon testing must be paid by the dairy.)

A Connecticut legislator said last week at the hearing on the legislation that the fact the ag regulators are proposing to do routine pathogen testing now makes the new legislation “a revenue bill.” In the current “cut everything” climate, I could imagine the Connecticut legislators requesting a return to the state’s original proposal, and force raw dairies to pay for their pathogen testing, which could add many thousands to their expenses.

In any event, we now have two states in which the costs associated with raw milk oversight are an articulated issue. So I started thinking, conspiratorially, as I am wont to do, given the conspiratorial approach of the government overseers...Supposing the regulators and legislators start saying, “You know, we could be fine with your raw milk craziness, but damn, the costs are such, and the climate is such, we just can’t do it. Too bad. Just as we’re beginning to change our minds, the costs become an issue.”

The “solution,” eventually, would be for the dairies to pay their way--for the testing, for ag department inspections, for reports, for required bottling equipment, and on and on. All that will raise costs, and inevitably raise the prices of raw milk, maybe by a factor of two, three, five, or even ten or more. The higher the multiple, the fewer people can afford the product. Mission accomplished.

Comments

[Sylvia Gibson]

David,

I was in Little Rock last Dec. I was unable to find unhomoginized (sp) milk. If it was there I couldn't find it. Nor could I find cream that wasn't ultra-pasteurized. Time didn't allow to search out raw milk.

Today here in Sacramento, the CO-OP was out of raw cream, OP delivers on Tues. (I think) Claravale only had skim milk left. If raw dairy becomes unobtainable in the stores, the black market will expand and the unscrupulous will dump dirty milk onto unsuspecting people. This will only reinforce that the govt is NOT working with the people.

I have 30 months to retirement. If things within the govt keep following the same road, I will need my own cow for fresh unadulterated milk. Who do I contact to obtain a little Jersy cow?

[Kimberly Hartke]

I would like to see private testing put on the same level as government testing. If my dairy farmer tests at a legitimate lab, and can post the results on his barn wall or facebook page or website, that would be sufficient to make me feel comfortable buying his product.

I do not feel government testing, especially if it is cost prohibitive, is in the best interest of the farmer or the consumer. Perhaps the government could approve the labs, and leave the rest up to us.

Kimberly
hartkeisonline.com
another blog about raw milk

[Gordon Watson]

you're going to see high prices for high quality foods, as the chasm widens between stuff which is only 'the image of food', versus true foods.
in a genuinely free market there's a whole range of prices, according to varying qualities of the product. Why shouldn't milk be the same? It will as dairies distinguish themselves from the Stalinist industrial agricultural model
here in Vancouver BC, our milk arrives in town - 80 miles from the farm - at $17.50 Canadian $ per gallon ; if we don't get that much, it won't be flowing in this neck of the woods because wouldn't be worth the farmers' while to produce it, then DELIVER it
meanwhile in Washington state a few miles away, REAL MILK sells for $6.50 US per gallon, under the most stringent health + safety regulations in the world.
I'm all for on-site testing ...with the highest-calibre equipment available. Costs of those systems to test biological materials will soon come down. Informed consumers will pay whatever it costs, to pay people to do it right, in order to get the good stuff
those in the business of raw milk cannot just sit home on the farm ... to get the high prices must abide by the maxim in the advertising game "the more you tell, the more you sell". Customers buy information wrapped-around a product
www.freewebs.com/bovinity

[miguel]

Kimberly,

If you want your milk fresh,how can a test on last week's milk be reassuring when the tests on today's milk are not available yet?A cow's milk can easily test negative one day,then positive the next for any specific "pathogen".Are you just referring to the total bacteria count?If government testing might be cost prohibitive,how could the same tests done by a private lab be affordable?When you say testing,are you talking about testing for a number of "pathogens" like ecoli 0157:H7,salmonella,listeria,staph aureus,clostridium,bacillus cereus ,yersinia and campylobacter?Would the testing be done on each milking or weekly ,monthly?

[Blair McMorran]

In Colorado, dairies pay for regular milk tests, as well as overnight shipping costs. As Miguel says, the milk usually gets delivered before the test results are published. It's kind of misleading to let people think that testing prevents illness - but if you look at it as "trend" data that reflects a given dairy's herd health and milk handling practices over time, it works fairly well. A spike in Standard Plate Count on one test is nothing to be alarmed about but if those high counts continue over time, there's a problem on the farm that needs to be isolated.

Even if the gov't puts the burden of testing on dairies, there's bound to be a lab that will want the test business. We found one lab that was willing to give us a significant discount if we all sent samples in on the same day. He charges $20.50 for 4 tests (SPC, Coliform, Salmonella & e.coli 0157:H7) - and he only offers that to RMAC members. Another lab quoted us $80 for the same tests. Overnight shipping costs another $20 (some dairies are close enough to hand-deliver their samples).

Extra tests will cost more. For the most part this is affordable unless you're a small goat producer. (I wish RMAC could pay for these tests - you can get a supporting membership for $25...join today!)

Based on what I'm learning, I'm wondering if we should require a consumer physical & stool sample before they're allowed to buy a herdshare. Low bacterial counts, and they're rejected until they can get those counts up. And they'd only have to test once a year, as long as there was no conventional medical intervention. That might be foolproof.

-Blair

[Don Wittlinger]

Our neighbor back in the 1940s had a cow that they milked, made butter and cottage cheese, the iceman came every few days brought a chunk ice about 50 lbs, we had no electric fridges then. They did not get sick. Us dumb kids would pick up the dried and semi dried cow droppings and throw the droppings at each other it was great fun then. To make matters worse we went bare footed in the summer and of course many times stepped into the wet droppings and watched the warm wet stuff ooze up between our toes UGH. They also had some mules used in the coal mines and the mule droppings were also great fun to toss at each other being round balls and still wet. We did not get sick or die of E coli , lucky I guess.
After consuming raw dairy for 4 years and seeing the dramatic positive changes in my health and even my wifes increased bone structure, I can not climb on the Gov. fearmongering bandwagon or their hysterical sacred cow calls of the dangers of raw milk. {sorry dairy cartels I dont believe your hirelings]
When I buy my milk at the farm I want fresh milk ,yesterdays or todays not last weeks after being tested and approved by big brother nor do I want to pay for him to count the bad germs with his microscope. Call me a fool if you like but if I decide to be a fool is it still my freedom of choise to be a fool?
I have no objection to others getting their milk tested by big brother, but you should be aware of a possible Torjan Horse since big brothers policy nationwide is antiraw dairy is it not?

[miguel]

The standard plate count is just a count of the number of lactic acid producing bacteria in the milk.Everyone who gets milk once a week can do their own standard plate count test just by tasting the milk after a week in the fridge.If it tastes fresh still then the count is low.If it isn't keeping it's fresh taste for a week,check the temp in the fridge and let the people doing the milking know that the milk did not keep for the whole week.

Testing for individual pathogens doesn't really make sense to me.Whether a bacteria is a pathogen or not depends on the rest of the microbes that surround it.Most of us have seen a corn or soy bean field in the spring that was sprayed the previous year with weed killers.The weeds that come up in the spring tend to be those resistant weeds like burdock or thistles.What we see is mostly bare ground with a few patches of these resistant weeds growing.If those plants were allowed to make seeds,those seeds would find a very favorable situation and soon the whole field would be nothing but those resistant varieties of weeds.Contrast that situation with a meadow populated thickly with a great variety of plants.If we look around I'm sure we could find a few of those thistles and burdock that had taken over the sprayed field.If we leave them alone to make seeds ,will they take over the whole meadow?I can assure you that they would not.In fact,their seeds would mostly be eaten by some creature that lives in the meadow.The meadow is not the type of environment that those "weeds" prefer.In the meadow these plants are not really weeds.They do serve a purpose in this environment and make their own contribution to the health of the system.

What we really would like to know from the pathogen test is: Is this milk the type of environment that can be taken over by pathogens?For this test,take a pint of milk and keep it at room temp (70 deg) for 48 hours or until it becomes like custard or yoghurt.It should be pleasant smelling and have a pleasant flavor.Lots of gas bubbles indicates a contamination problem as does any unpleasant odor or taste.

[Concerned Person]

Don,

E.coli 0157:H7 bacteria did not exist in the 1940’s . It was discovered in the 1980’s so that probably means it was created (e.coli merging with Shigella) sometime in the 1970’s.

Cows in the 1940’s did not host E.coli 0157:H7 because this bacterium didn’t exist yet.

Miguel,

Interesting theory about letting the milk sit for 48 hours. My understanding about E.coli 0157:H7 is that it doesn’t render a smell or change the way food looks, but can still be present. It may kill the 0157:H7 in the glass of milk that has now been fermented, but what about the milk that wasn’t? That’s the milk the infants and children are drinking.

In recent history, E.coli 0157:H7 has been the pathogen contaminating raw milk. No likes to hear this, but the children are the victims.
2005 Washington/Oregon Dee Creek Farm
2006 California OPDC
2008 Missouri-- goats milk sold at Herb Depot and Organic Market
2008 Connecticut-- cows milk sold in retail stores 2008
2007 Vermont-- milk sold directly from the farm 2008

How can we prevent E.coli 0157:H7 from contaminating raw milk?

cp

[miguel]

cp,

If fermenting the milk in a pint jar kills the ecoli 0157:H7,it is because the lactic acid produced has killed off the ecoli.That same milk passing through someone's digestive system would normally ferment in a similar way unless something is done to change the milk so that it supports the survival of ecoli 0157:H7.Lots of things will upset the balance in the digestive system to inhibit or kill lactic acid producing bacteria and to make room for the ecoli to grow.When this happens we should try to understand why the balance was upset.If the milk ferments normally in the pint jar,some other factor must be causing the imbalance.

If lactic acid producing bacteria are present in sufficient numbers,the lactic acid will kill off the ecoli 0157:H7.This not a theory,it is proven by experiment and observation.If lactic acid producing bacteria are not present in sufficient numbers,lots of opportunistic bacteria will fill the space they would normally occupy.Many of these bacteria do produce bad odors and tastes.The test is not specific for the detection of ecoli 0157:H7 it only tells us whether or not there are enough lactic acid producing bacteria in the milk so that it can outcompete other bacteria for the nutrients in the milk.

The question should be asked: How can we assure that, if ecoli 0157:H7 is in our milk,we will not provide it with the opportunity to proliferate.Making sure that we have plenty of lactic acid producing bacteria in the milk and in our gut will do it.We can prevent most food poisoning by consuming probiotic food daily and by carefully avoiding food that kills our beneficial gut bacteria.

[miguel]

cp,

We don't know whether ecoli 0157:H7 existed before the 1980's.It's existence was discovered then,but only because someone had the interest and the tools to distinguish it from other ecoli.

[Concerned Person]

Miguel,

The “hamburger disease” began in the 1980’s and with this disease was the discovery of E.coli 0157:H7. That’s why I made the statement that the creation of 0157:H7 probably occurred in the 1970’s. It took awhile to connect that people were becoming ill from eating hamburgers.

cp

[Concerned Person]

Blair,

How do you propose that people should bring up their bacteria counts before consuming raw milk? What food products or supplements should they consume to build good bacteria in their guts?

cp

[miguel]

cp,

From a different point of view it could be that although ecoli 0157:H7 existed for the past 3.7 billion years,up until 1970, people with very few beneficial gut bacteria did not exist.My question would be :What happened in the 1970's that was so damaging to many of our immune systems?Whatever it was,it is still happening today and seems to be getting worse.

As you drive through the countryside,pay attention to the condition of the farm fields.I believe the answer to that question is the widespread, systematic sterilization of our soil and our food.

[Don Wittlinger]

If the E coli problems were first discovered in the 80s that sort of makes me wonder if there is a direct connection to the increased and wide spread use of antibiotics in human and animals along with the increased grain feed cattle in feed lots and confinement dairies???? The result then being the cattle and us becoming a perfect host for the E coli???

[Steve Bemis]

cp - Blair will correct me, but the assumption in your question is that raw milk is somehow a problem in all cases, at all times. The only time when it would have been helpful for one to "bring up their bacteria counts" would be if you assume they are about to drink raw milk that is contaminated with a pathogen which might be able to take advantage of the milk/consumer terrain in such a way as to proliferate and cause illness. Although that occasionally occurs, the results of a raw milk contamination event are very much like the results in the population at large when much more wide-spread contaminations occur - some people get sick, and most do not. In fact, raw milk as a probiotic would be one of the best things to consume to rebuild poorly balanced gut flora. The risk intersection is when the susceptible individual with a compromised gut meets the unfortunate circumstance of pathogen contamination. In fact, it's probably true that raw milk comes in for more problems than it should, simply because it is seen as helpful to those who want to address some problems founded in poor nutrition. Thus, perhaps more than normally, it is being consumed by those who are susceptible in one way or another. If the response is to say, well then don't drink it at all, then the road continues in its downward spiral unless some other food as rich in probiotics as milk can be found. I would say, if you're not confident (or don't know enough how to be confident or not) in your raw milk source, it would be best to start with other probiotic foods and perhaps supplements (although foods work much better) and mostly, quit eating junk. And then get to a local farmer whom you know and can trust, or who is recommended as such by those you know and whom you trust, and continue from there.

[Sylvia Gibson]

"What happened in the 1970's that was so damaging to many of our immune systems?Whatever it was,it is still happening today and seems to be getting worse."

The explosion of fast foods and processed foods became the norm, the use of chemicals; herbicides/pesticides, antibiotics, and other chemicals became mainstream norms. The pollution of our environment and the living conditions of our animals for food are toxic environments. These factors have a negative affect on our immune systems along with an adverse effect on everything else.

Look at GERD (acid reflux) 20-30 yrs ago it was rare, now it is one of the top 10 diseases. Drug companies make big $$$ on pepcid, tagament, prilosec, etc. One of those things that make you go Hmmm. What is causing it? I believe it is the diet so many consume. You are indeed what you eat. Not to forget that those medications change the flora in the gut, thus making you susceptable to bacteria intrusion/overgrowth among other things.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:paOm57SfYRIJ:www.wrongdiagnosis.com/news/reflux_medication_tied_with_clostridium_gut_infection.htm+antiacid+medications&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

[Don Wittlinger]

Here is an article on the raw milk debate and current events in Maryland.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bal-to.hs.milk16feb16,0,719915.story

[David Kendall]

Blair,
*I'm wondering if we should require a consumer physical & stool sample before they're allowed to buy a herdshare.*

I think this is a great idea. The high hurdle of expense and inconvenience would certainly separate the true-believers from the rest. It would ensure that people were really taking responsibility for their own health. If this idea could be worked out, the regulators would have little to regulate - because, IMHO, the incidence of illness would likely drop to ZIP.

Do you suppose a deal might be worked out with the lab you mentioned?
Do you suppose the regulators might go along with something this sane? Nahh.

*I'm wondering if we should require a consumer physical & stool sample before they're allowed to buy a herdshare.*

Just as FYI, you may be walking a line with practicing medicine without a license by interpreting and making recommendations on human lab results. I doubt this conversation is serious, but if you were to go down that road, consider checking with the Colorado Medical Board (or engaging a licensed health care provider). Maybe Gwen would have an opinion as someone working in the health care industry?

[Mark McAfee]

Dear CP,

There is an old saying "When a lie is repeated enough times and loud enough it soon becomes truth....".

Please fact check...and ask CDFA if there has ever been a positive Ecoli 0157H7 test in any OPDC raw milk,any place, anytime. The aswer will be NO.

Why do you list OPDC as having had a positive Ecoli 0157H7 test in its raw milk?

What is your agenda here? What ever it is please tell the truth as the basis of your comments.

Mark McAfee