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.
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?
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
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
http://www.freewebs.com/bovinity
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?
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
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?
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.
E.coli 0157:H7 bacteria did not exist in the 1940s . It was discovered in the 1980s so that probably means it was created (e.coli merging with Shigella) sometime in the 1970s.
Cows in the 1940s did not host E.coli 0157:H7 because this bacterium didnt exist yet.
Miguel,
Interesting theory about letting the milk sit for 48 hours. My understanding about E.coli 0157:H7 is that it doesnt 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 wasnt? Thats 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
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.
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.
The hamburger disease began in the 1980s and with this disease was the discovery of E.coli 0157:H7. Thats why I made the statement that the creation of 0157:H7 probably occurred in the 1970s. It took awhile to connect that people were becoming ill from eating hamburgers.
cp
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
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.
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
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bal-to.hs.milk16feb16,0,719915.story
*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.
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?
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
Your cows have E. coli O157:H7 and campylobacter in their poop – this is documented (and no surprise). They probably have Salmonella too, but the tests were not conducted.
Cp asserted: *In recent history, E.coli 0157:H7 has been the pathogen contaminating raw milk.*
She next listed specific instances. *2006 California OPDC* included.
I think Marks question *Why do you list OPDC as having had a positive Ecoli 0157H7 test in its raw milk?* is an appropriate one one that, in the interests of determining what-is-so, must be answered directly.
Marks response, *ask CDFA if there has ever been a positive Ecoli 0157H7 test in any OPDC raw milk, any place, anytime. The answer will be NO.* seems very clear. I too, would like cp to show the specific CDFA test that was positive for E.coli 0157:H7 and post it for all to see.
The issue was about E.coli 0157:H7 in the MILK not in the POOP.
Always a good idea.
I believe you outsourced colostrum in the summer of 2006. Im sure if that dairy had been tested, the matching blueprint of E.coli 0157:H7 would have been found. Oh, and lets not forget that this is the only organic dairy in the U.S. to lose its organic status. Seems like you should have done a little more homework before choosing this dairy for selling products with the OP label.
I dont have a bias.just reporting the facts.
David Kendall,
Not every batch or every bottle of OPDC milk is tested. I believe Mark tests a batch about once a week, but I will let Mark speak on that subject. But if I do the math, that means milk is tested 4 times a month, but the cows are milked everyday. So on average, 26 days of the month milk is not tested.
As for the state of California, I believe they test once a month. So that means 29 to 30 days goes untested.
Its clear to me how E.coli 0157:H7 could slip by undetected.
cp
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson resigned Friday, warning of a potential global outbreak of the flu and health-related terror attacks. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do, he said.
We could reliably monitor pathogens in milk, peanut butter, apple juice, or any other food product. But, we can’t.
It is possible to find the pathogens at their source, like cow poop. Keep it out of the milk, spinach, apple juice, etc. thank you.
Your original comment above concerning E.coli 0157:H7 and OPDC milk leaves the clear impression that E.coli 0157:H7 has INDEED BEEN FOUND in OPDC milk.
Now you are saying only that it COULD have been found in that milk (if it had been tested every single day) which is a very different thing.
Given that there have been hundreds of E.coli 0157:H7 tests done on OP milk and NONE of them have come back positive, I (and many others) can accept the clear trend that OPDC milk is safe (by State of California standards) to drink and that consumers should have little to fear from drinking it.
Again, please back up your original assertion or clearly retract it.
Youve made a good case that HUS can arise from consuming E.coli 0157:H7 tainted foods but other commenters have pointed out that the few times that HUS appears, there also usually are additional factors that need to be considered like the inappropriate prescribed use of antibiotics, for instance.
An easier target to hit would be any of a number of foods / phoods from companies that have much worse track records.
Oh yes there is PROBABLY 0157 in the cows poop…oh yes 0157 COULD slip by…these types of statements also show that you are cherry picking reality just to foster a false perspective. Despicable.
There was freedom of choise 200 years ago it had few exceptions, freedom of choise today is surrounded by and filled with exceptions. We will rue the days we traded our freedoms for false claims of peace, safety, security and prosperity. IMHO
"HOW STRANGELY WILL THE TOOLS OF A TYRANT PERVERT THE PLAIN MEANING OF WORDS" SAMUEL ADAMS
http://www.healthremedies.com/about_us.html This link will send a lab request, I assume signed by a NP.
http://www.paylessbloodtest.com/faq.php
I will admit to some cognitive dissonance. I hear your very welcome comments about local food, and your wonderful idea of selling your own honey, and that you are different from the raw milk community, but also alienated from the regulator point-of-view. Yet when it comes to the issue of food freedom, you seem to be a closed door. That is surprising to me.
I know that you have avoided debating food freedom here (was it you who once asked a correspondent to set aside the "libertarian outrage"?) in favor of the clinical debate, but I don’t see how any honest person can divorce the clinical from the constitutional. You are very comfortable with the current ideology of pathogenicity defined as the presence of a particular microbe. I am not, but because your side has assumed the right to control me, my notions about how to stay healthy and how to keep my family healthy, have become functionally irrelevant. I wonder… What would you do if the state (I mean "state" in the generic sense) suddenly deemed raw honey unfit for human consumption? Would you feel imprisoned? In the raw milk debate, are you ignoring the shoe because it’s not you being stepped on?
Lincoln famously said: "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent." Do you agree with Lincoln on this? How far are you willing to go in controlling others lives through policy enforced by violence?
This is getting ridiculous.
We going to require testing of every meal prepared by a loving mother and father now in order to ‘protect the children’?
Bravo, Dave!
This is the same question I posed as we fight for our right to food freedom here in Arkansas. The politicians, regulators and other bureaucrats eyes will glaze over at the thought of their irrelevance – because, when you ask for freedom (of any kind), that is what you are doing – indicating the irrelevance of violent government policy and the people that tend to it.
There was a time in this country when property rights and private contracts were the law of the land, and individual rights held paramount to the tempting but ultimately false collectivist promises of happiness and safety without risk.
Lykke, I’m interested in your response to Dave’s question.
As for testing the milk at OPDC and any other dairy that posts their test results, the test results only reflect the test on that given day with that given batch. Lets say a dairy tests 6 times a month and the state tests once a month. That means 84 days out of the year you have results for the dairys milk. That also means 281 days of the year you dont have milk tested. 77% of the time, the milk leaves the diary untested.
My interpretation of test resultsif the test comes back positive you have a big problem because you are only testing 23% of the milk at any given time. The odds are in a dairys favor to come up negative. Now the reverse would be true if the milk was tested 77% of the time.
David, if test results from 23 % of the milk being tested makes you feel safe enough to drink it, you certainly have the right to make that decision. But it doesnt mean that a pathogen isnt present in the 77% of the milk that hasnt been tested.
Back to my original question, How do we prevent E.coli 0157:H7 from contaminating raw milk? Or maybe Im asking the wrong question. Does anyone else believe there is a problem with E.coli 0157:H7 and raw milk?
cp
CP wrote:
"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?"
I’m with Steve Bemis – he covered that nicely. Thanks Steve!
David Kendall – Bacteria is a powerful healing tool – maybe you’re right to suggest that dairies turn the tables and emphasize that consumers are responsible for getting sick. Certainly wouldn’t be hard to implement. Even selectively, after a few minutes you can figure out who’s sick and how sue-happy they are. I’d definitely test a few people I know, if I were producing milk!
CP, you probably should never drink raw milk. The worry and stress would send you to the hospital, and then you’d need to worry about MRSA, pnuemonia, etc…I’m not being flip; if you spend this much time on e.coli it obviously really concerns you. I think about it when I handle raw chicken of unknown origin (I sometimes buy cases of organic chicken backs for my dog – I have to break it up into ziploc bags and freeze. Occasionally I absent-mindedly lick my fingers, and then I think ‘uh-oh…’ then I shrug, raise my eyes upward and think "you go, kefir!" wipe off the counter with a dirty sponge, and feed the dog. I know what food poisoning feels like, and I haven’t had it since phake phactory phood days, Praise the Lord and pass the raw milk!)
I am convinced that kefir, raw milk and other local farm foods, (and avoidance of bad stuff – as Miguel points out – there’s plenty of destructive forces out there that deplete gut flora – including stress) are my magic gut cloaks So e.coli is just not much of an issue for me.
By the way, http://www.eatwild.com/foodsafety.html might interest you. Based on the graphs on this page, how likely is it that grassfed cows carry e.coli 0157:H7? Hope that reassures you at least a little bit? It certainly knocks down your assumption that 77% of OP milk might have e.coli, doesn’t it?
Lykke, I was only half-serious, but to answer your post, we wouldn’t interpret the results of a lab sample – the medical community would.
What really is important is that consumers and producers communicate and self-educate and teach each other. If you know your source, it’s pretty easy to feel confident (or insecure) about the food they produce.
What we should do is extract the choice blogs and terrific reader comments here and write a ‘Raw Milk Consumption Handbook’.
Is Tim Wightman here? 🙂
-Blair
Dave – on the freedom question, I have entirely figured that out. In general, I like Steve Bemis’ 11 Great Thoughts and think they cover choice, liability, and education (consumer warning). The kids are a problem in my mind, but parents do far more risky things to endanger their kids compared with feeding them raw milk that might contain a pathogen. I am in favor of education, but am bothered by statements on the WAPF site, in particular. There is what I see as blatant misleading statements (and there is misleading information on CDC and FDA’s sites too). The worst thing is that the 2 "sides" can’t have a reasonable discussion and remove their propaganda. I’d love to see a clear link on these websites for consumers about the risks (and benefits – that’s fine where there is documentation), AND a clear link for raw dairy farmers – maybe modeled on CO’s approach, but input from professionals in dairy science providing sample testing algorithms, interpretation of tests, sanitation programs, maybe even a HACCP plan etc. But, the information needs to be accurate and fact-based. For example, there shouldn’t be exaggerated statements about "grass feeding: to prevent colonization with human foodborne pathogens. That is a misleading statement that I’ve seen here many times – it especially cannot be backed up for Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Yersinia, etc. Only E. coli O157:H7 has been studied and the results were mixed.
That probably isn’t a satisfying answer ("I don’t know,: never is, but just being honest). I think there should be a balance between food choice and protecting the public health. The approach should be scalable to the size of the farm/operation (for example, a 20 cow herdshare vs. a 600 cow dairy with statewide distribution). Again, Steve’s 11GT seem like a starting point if the "other side" would discuss the issue (outside the courtroom).
Can you show us that tests exist that are accurate and reliable for all of those "pathogens"?
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2880313/Food-safety-protocol-pathogen-detection.html#abstract
"In its April, 2003 report on "Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food," the National Academy of Science concluded that any "science-based food-safety criteria must be clearly linked to the public health problem it is designed to address." Unfortunately, sampling and testing technology limits the degree to which such linkages can be made, and it only complicates matters that every company has its own philosophy and level of technical sophistication."
" On the bright side, tests are becoming increasingly accurate, reliable, sensitive, and speedy. More importantly for Tim Biela, vice president of food safety and quality assurance, American Foodservice Corp., these tests may someday distinguish pathogenic organisms from their benign cousins.
Biela notes that with Salmonella testing, less than 10 percent of the organisms detected are actually a threat to human health. The rest are closely related, but harmless, and therefore "the presence or absence of Salmonella doesn’t tell you anything about pathogenicity," he reports. But properly calibrated genetic tests could look for the specific genetic traits that spell pathogenicity."
If 90 percent of the time the test shows a problem when there is none,wouldn’t it be a huge waste to test at all?
And the BIG question:If a test shows that the milk is contaminated and no one gets sick from drinking it ,what does this mean?
Blair, Im pointing out there is an E.coli 0157:H7 problem with raw milk. Would anyone on this blog like to acknowledge this fact?
cp
Something like this is what I think we’ve been moving toward in this discussion.
To say simply and broadly as you suggest, that raw milk has a problem with E coli 0157:H7, could only be fairly met with a statement saying yes (with the above elaboration), but so do tomatoes, peppers, hamburger and almost any other kind of food once it is contaminated by offending poop, and most of these other foods would be more dangerous when eaten than raw milk with its complement of competing protective bacteria in a living system.
Raw milk’s single greatest problem with E coli 0157:H7 certainly lies in propinquity of the udder and the anus; this is manifestly first an issue of minimizing the presence of the bacteria in the cow’s gut through proper feeding and maintaining the animal’s health; and then secondly through proper milking techniques, clean equipment, refrigeration and testing.
Sorry to get to carried away on a straightforward question. It deserves an answer. And I freely admit to having learned here, there is more to "testing" than just "testing."
"There is a problem with poop containing E coli 0157:H7 contaminating raw milk which, if drunk by a person whose gut flora is unbalanced and susceptible to attack by the E coli 0157:H7 which may remain after competing bacteria in the raw milk have reduced its pathogenicity, may then cause illness in that susceptible person who in turn will have some risk of developing HUS and if then treated inadvisably by administration of antibiotics, may suffer increased risk of developing HUS. Such risks may be higher for some children and some elderly and others, most particularly those with compromised immune systems or other medical issues typically manifested by deficient or unbalanced gut flora."
Heres two more questions. With the above statement being said, why does the raw milk movement market raw milk to children with asthma and adults with digestive issues? Dont both categories of people have a gut flora that is unbalanced?
cp
I am comfortable with Steves wording of the ecoli problem with raw milk at least for this discussion. Refinements could be added as necessary later. It is a clear, straightforward answer and I like it. I am making a copy of it to hang on my wall to refer to if we need to discuss it further. Do you accept this as a working definition and as a starting point? I really would like to put this HUS question to bed, but I want it done right.
Your other two questions are good and fair ones too. I would hope that, after hearing perspectives from interested parties, (near) agreement could be found here also.
I liked the honest response, but I am curious what about freedom you are still working out? The alternative to freedom is coercion.
To say there is a middle ground with freedom is to say, "Okay, you can have some choices, some freedom, over these parts of your life but for the rest you must do as we say." That is not freedom. It’s all or nothing.
Like raw milk, with freedom there is no "kill step" to guarantee complete safety that doesn’t adulterate it. The pasteurization of freedom with regulations, fines, raids, jail and physical violence takes all the good stuff out of it and often makes it even more dangerous with long term exposure making us weaker and less resilient.
Of course we should concern ourselves with the health of our children and elders. Coercion and violence is not the answer. Cooperation and education are key. Even then, there are those that will choose their own path – and accepting that is one of the toughest parts of freedom.
I’m interested in Lykke’s or anybody’s thoughts on this.
The test for the presence of ecoli 0157:H7 is done by treating the food sample with an antibiotic that ecoli 0157:H7 is resistant to and then feeding the sample a broth containing soy.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:H30sl_yV0fsJ:www.emdchemicals.com/analytics/literature/031019_Singlepath_Ecoli.pdf+ecoli+0157:H7+testing+accuracy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a
"Our new Singlepath E. coli 0157 immunochromato-
graphical test offers all the benefits of traditional test
methods with the added benefits of speed, reliability
and convenience. When used in conjunction with our
EC Broth Modified (mEC Broth) or Tryptic Soy Broth
Modified (mTSB) for enrichment, you can be sure that
after a 24 hour incubation, the count of the target
E. coli 0157 will be at levels that assure either a true
positive or negative result from the rapid test. The
media already contain Novobiocin for convenience
which suppresses the growth of Gram-positive
microbial flora"
The antibiotic wipes out the lactic acid bacteria which held the ecoli in check,then to make the ecoli grow so that it is abundant enough to find, it is fed on its favorite food.How did they guess that it would like soy?I think we all know that certain bacteria are associated with certain foods so it is logical to guess that ecoli 0157:H7 would be associated with corn and soybeans.
Lactic acid bacteria are among the bacteria that cause food spoilage.To extend shelf life ,it is necessary to inhibit or kill these bacteria.Food preservatives are designed to kill these bacteria.The purpose of pasteurization is to kill these bacteria.When we eat food containing preservatives and made up of corn and soy products,we are duplicating this ecoli 0157:H7 test in our guts.
If we understand the principles behind this test,we can avoid giving the ecoli 0157:H7 the environment it prefers by feeding the lactic acid bacteria the food it prefers and denying the ecoli 0157:H7 the food it prefers.Lots of lactic acid bacteria are sure protection against 0157:H7 and avoiding food containing corn and soy or food from animals fed corn and soy is the logical approach to food safety.
People who are eating a diet high in preservatives and corn and soy are like people who drive too fast and don’t wear their seatbelts.
Your questions appear to assume the worst, i.e. that raw milk will always contain pathogens. This is not a fair assumption, and given that raw milk has been proven (in the case of asthma and hay fever, citing the PARSIFAL study in Europe) to be helpful for children (presumably due to the beneficial bacteria in raw milk), for parents who choose this course, with many anecdotal confirmations of effectiveness, it seems logical to be careful of your raw milk source and try to help one’s child. In other words, the very small risk of a pathogen contamination is balanced against the much more likely chance that the food will help with a disease, asthma, which itself has serious risks including death. It’s a personal calculus and deserves the freedom to choose. I’m not aware of any comparable study of old f**ts other than anecdotal stories such as my own (used to sneeze dozens of times every morning during hay fever season and have virtually no symptoms in years since drinking raw milk – age 61) and the multiple testimonies of others including Don W. on this blog.
Miguel your observations continue to open my eyes. Thank you.
Good point, we lack a definition here. I was being general with the word "freedom," and perhaps use that word differently coming from a different generation, maybe. Basically, I am not anti-government, and believe regulation has a place in the discussion about raw dairy sales. If "freedom" means no food safety standards, then we disagree. I am open to discussing what those standards might look like and how they can be applied to scale (in a fair way from small farms to big corporations).
Food safety standards should protect the public not the corporate food industry.If the science behind these standards is sound,why does the FDA refuse to answer our questions about their policies?Can we be in favor of the rule of law without being against the governors tactic of threatening and coercing us into entering into contracts that we don’t wish to enter?
Freedom does not mean the absence of food safety, it just means that if you disagree with someone’s approach to food safety you cannot violently impose your vision of food safety on them.
Why not a private certification process?
If farmers met a specific set of standards, this private certifying body could give the farmers permission to use their labels that indicate the milk was of the highest quality. It could be paid for by membership fees from the farmers. Any farmer who violated the standards who have their certification revoked. The certifiers would have some real incentive to insure the farmers continue to produce high quality milk, and the farmers would have some real incentive to retain that certification. Their wouldn’t need to be just one certifying agency either. Competition among certifiers and competition among producers – a boon for the consumer and raw milk safety!