For about two years, a debate has flared on and off on this blog over whether raw milk produced by Organic Pastures Dairy Co. made six California children ill in September 2006. Mary McGonigle-Martin has pushed most insistently that OPDC’s milk was the culprit.
I challenged Mary in blog postings to stop complaining and, if she truly believed in her argument, use the institutions our society provides for pursuing injustice—namely, the court system.
Finally, in early 2008, Mary (along with the family of Lauren Herzog), did file suit, and I thought, well, finally, this thing is going to get resolved—either via a court trial or a negotiated settlement. What I didn’t anticipate is that the battle leading up to some kind of resolution would be so bruising.
We’ve seen a posting last summer by Mary McGonigle-Martin on YouTube of a video of Chris Martin on life support. (Mary removed the video a few days later, apparently after complaints by Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. that the video could prejudice the case.). There’s been a presentation about the case by a lawyer for the children at a food protection seminar.
Now, we have the most intriguing submission yet: a collection of “expert” opinions posted by the families’ law firm, MarlerClark.
The reason this submission is so intriguing is because it seeks to address the biggest hole in the case, dating from the initial reporting of illnesses in September 2006, when investigators turned Organic Pastures upside down looking for pathogens: the absence of a direct link between the strain of E.coli 0157:H7 found in children who became ill, and the dairy itself—a so-called “smoking gun.” In a lengthy document, Bill Marler states that he has plugged that hole of “identifying the causal connection” between Organic Pastures milk and the sick kids.
Has he?
The emotions that always seem to surround raw milk came out when I inquired Friday with Marler as to the document’s legal purpose. He addressed my previously expressed skepticism about the “smoking gun” in his blog posting, answering “one of my fans” (me), by saying his document “was prepared by me (Marler) and given to counsel for Organic Pastures and the grocery stores so they would better understand our position in the litigation. We have nothing to hide. I also told him (me) with respect to his version of the facts – ‘Obama could be a Muslim and the earth could be 5,000 years old. All possible, but very, very unlikely.’”
Leaving aside the trash talk between Marler and me, the crux of the document is the opinions of six “of the most respected leaders in the field of epidemiology.” It makes truly fascinating reading, because it so well presents the assessment process that epidemiologists go through in analyzing a case of food-borned illness. In reading it, I tried to reserve judgment, and instead attempted to understand the thinking. Reserving judgment wasn’t easy.
The first, and presumably leading, expert quoted, Dr. William Keene, an epidemiologist with the Oregon Public Health Division, goes through a mathematical assessment of the probability of so many of the children who became ill being linked to Organic Pastures, and states, “To put it in plain English, it is implausible that this association would occur by chance alone.”
But he betrays his prejudice against raw milk when he explains the supposed contamination of Organic Pastures’ raw milk: “It’s pretty much the same story over and over, there is no mystery in this process. Raw milk is virtually always contaminated with bovine feces, and the evidence indicates that Organic Pastures milk was no exception.” This, of course, is a falsehood, based on evidence that unpasteurized conventional milk is often laced with pathogen-containing feces—he says as much when he notes that “there are traces of cow manure in pooled milk after collection…”
Given his apples-and-oranges comparison of Organic Pastures raw milk with conventional unpasteurized milk, it’s difficult to accept Keene’s nearly condescending explanation of why the pathogens in the sick children were never found at the Organic Pastures dairy. He tells us that “0157 shedding by bovines can be very intermittent, such that positive samples on one day can be followed by negative samples for days or weeks thereafter. In summary, the lack of matching 0157 culture results at the dairy is not at all inconsistent with the conclusion that Organic Pastures was the source…Public health agencies do not have the resources to collect and test potential thousands of samples over a period of months to fully document the obvious.” Well, at least it’s obvious to Keene.
Another expert, Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health, seems to argue that a stray mystery germ may be the culprit in the case. He explains that “the lack of isolation of the outbreak strain of E.coli 0157:H7 from the cattle on the farm is not unexpected. I know from previous outbreaks that a specific strain of E.coli 0157:H7 may be transient in a bovine population. Unless investigators were sampling at the farm on the day or days of production associated with the outbreak case consumption it is possible to not detect that strain in the raw milk. In addition, it’s possible the outbreak strain was in the milk on the day that investigators did sample but the presence of the organism was not uniform throughout the bulk tank or it was in levels not detectable by our current laboratory techniques due to the competition of other bacterial contamination (i.e. such as other fecal coliforms). The human gut is the ultimate bioassay and will tragically ‘detect even one or two E.coli bacterium’ that then leads to infection.”
His argument seems both a candid admission about the limits of existing tracking techniques, and a questionable case for relying on circumstantial evidence. In other words, the fact that we lack the capabilities to find the culprit pathogens shouldn’t stand in the way of handing out blame.
Mark McAfee was understandably upset by the ongoing postings by the MarlerClark firm, telling me that Marler is posting the experts’ opinions to avoid a trial of the case and force a settlement. “He’s contaminating the jury pool with this…He doesn’t want to take it to court. They like to settle cases. They like to fan the flames.”
He argued further than epidemiological evidence isn’t admissible in court. But he acknowledged that insurance companies often bow to the settlement pressures because “they don’t want to see children in court.”
It should be noted, though, that McAfee and the Weston A. Price Foundation aren’t totally innocent of making questionable claims in the case. As one example, in a January 2008 press release, the Weston A. Price Foundation stated that “thorough investigation of the milk, the cows and even the manure at Organic Pastures Dairy failed to find virulent E. coli or any other pathogen”.during the September 2006 investigation. Yet the Department of Health Services February 2007 report stated that three cows were found to harbor the pathogen. It was a different strain than what sickened five of the six children, but it was E.coli 0157:H7.
When I originally advised Mary McGonigle-Martin to go to court, I hoped the case would eventually get in front of a jury. It is a fascinating case. There definitely is a strong circumstantial case that the six children who became ill were made sick from drinking raw milk. But is circumstantial evidence enough, when there are questions even about the circumstances, such as whether administering antibiotics to two of the children possibly worsened their illnesses? It’s also a fact that, despite the arguments of Marler’s experts, there is no smoking gun, and it seems questionable to actually use that absence as further evidence of guilt. (“We may not have seen you commit the crime, but we know your type’s modus operandi.”)
The legal case may be ever more clouded, and the tactics questionable, but the Marler document definitely helps us understand how the so-called “experts” think, and how much in this arena remains frustratingly elusive, and thus the venue of high-priced opinion and theory.
Dr Keene’s testimony is just his opinion.He has no evidence to back it up.Is this libel or slander,I forget the definition.
Michael Osterholm, makes the absurd statement that one or two ecoli can all by themselves lead to infection.Where is his evidence for this opinion?
Opinion is just opinion it isn’t evidence.It has no value in a real court of law.The fact that they are only presenting opinion rather than real evidence means that they have no evidence.
Lykke, Are you willing to consider that something other than a "pathogen" could have been responsible for these illnesses?
Maybe in this case, it is we, the faithful comsumers of OPDC’s raw milk that need to be seen. Towards that goal, I have found that the labels on the half gallon containers (other size container labels don’t peel off as well) come off quite easily.
I was trying to think of something creative to do with my collection (send a stack to Gov. Schwarzenegger) but now think it is urgent that we make ourselves more visible and so I have attached some labels to my car’s bumper.
They’re really a lovely work of art with color pastoral pictures. I realize that courts may not hear about the many thousands who drink this product safely for our own betterment, but it will give us something to do even if it’s a small gesture.
Chris Lewis
Check out Car Art at Burning Man – perfect for the labels. And, a wonderful gathering place for everyone in the desert.
http://www.burningman.com/art_of_burningman/art_cars_on_the_playa.html
Miguel,
Yes, a pathogen (E. coli O157:H7) was responsible for these illnesses. Without the pathogen, there would have been no illness. Did other factors affect the outcome? Probably, most pathogens don’t go solo (unless they are huge names like Botulism Toxin). That is the intrigue of microbial pathogenesis: the interplay of the pathogen, the environment, and the patient. But, the pathogen is the lead singer and the rest of the players are members of the band. If the lead singer flakes, there is no show. Keep the lead singer – the pathogen – out of the milk, and there is no illness regardless of whether or not the drummer (antibiotics), the guitarist (lactic acid bacteria), or the fans (regulators, lawyers, activists) show-up.
If the lead singer is the pathogen wouldn’t the antibiotics have to be the microphone and its amplifier?If the guitar(LAB) played loud enough,no one could hear the lead singer(pathogen).If no one could hear the lead singer would the fans stick around?Actually,this is how quorum sensing of ecoli can be interfered with by the lactic acid bacteria,as long as the lead singer(pathogen) doesn’t have a microphone(antibiotic) to work with.
Seriously,this is all just your "expert" OPINION.Without any credentials to wave in my face,you should produce the expert research that backs up your opinion.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/disinfectants_can_make_bacteria_resistant_to_antibiotics
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/13/einstein.researchers.develop.novel.antibiotics.dont.trigger.resistance
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/16/flies.may.spread.drug.resistant.bacteria.poultry.operations
Chris L.
The use of transferable antibiotic resistance markers in LAB used in food production may increase the risk of their transfer to human intestinal flora as well as the potential of turning harmless, beneficial microbes into dangerous pathogens
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BanGMprobiotics.php
As a back up to Migel, the above article addresses the implications of attempting to genetically introduce novel traits into probiotics such as LAB.
In conclusion the article states,
The study of bacteria colonizing the human gut has only just begun. There are ten times more bacteria than there are cells in the intestine, consisting of more than 400 different species; the overwhelming majority of the species still unknown. Prof. Tore Midtvedt, who pioneered the use of germ-free mice to study gut bacteria, was among the first to demonstrate the important contribution of individual bacteria to the development of the immune system of the gut. In view of our vast ignorance of gut ecology, we cannot allow genetically modified probiotic bacteria to be used, unless and until we fully understand the intricate ecological balances that have co-evolved with the human species. There should be a ban on the use of any GM probiotic bacteria in human subjects.
Ken Conrad
GMO TRILOGY – HIDDEN DANGERS IN KIDS MEALS? Jeffery Smith
http://www.truveo.com/GMO-Trilogy-Hidden-Dangers-in-Kids%E2%80%99-Meals/id/505344346
GMO foods interfere with gut health?
Do we consume GMO bacteria and GMO fungus?
Science rigged?
If you haven’t watched this yet,it explains very well why it is dangerous to accept a theory without questioning it and testing it.So many people, including many who drink raw milk,have never bothered to question and test the theory that pathogens CAUSE disease.Without questioning and testing information for truth,we are just believing it based on faith or trust in the opinion of experts.Things can go seriously off course when the majority of people accept a false idea as truth.I am willing to bet that none of these "Experts" including Lykke and cp and regulator have ever for one minute doubted the truth of the germ theory or tried to test it’s validity.
In opposition to the germ theory we find a minority of people who are searching for answers rather than experts.Questioning and testing is the scientific approach.The majority belief is rarely questioned.When someone does question it,it’s defenders can only respond with complicated ,confusing defenses designed to distract or change the subject.Having never thought about questioning the theory,they don’t even understand the questions.All they want to do is get the discussion refocused back on the pathogen as the cause because that is all they know.
Why then, did only a few people, out of the thousands of people who drank the milk, get sick?
Surely, thousands should have gotten sick?
-Blair
Your logic is stunningly transparent. I did very poorly in math when I was in school, but even I can understand this. Apparently Lykke can hear the lead singer, when thousands of other controls are not aware that the "pathogen band" is even on stage.
Paul Hubbard
Virginia Peninsula
For the same reason that only a couple hundred got ill in the E.coli 0157:H7 spinach outbreak when millions ate the same spinach.
cp
For example, in the outbreak under discussion, those kids were in the prime of health – we have had more of a glimpse into their medical records than would be usual – these were kids with above average health it would seem. Moreover, the dairy producing the raw milk had a rigorous private and in-house lab testing regime, plus licensing with the state and all of their tests in place. Yet, the illnesses occurred, and they underscore the urgent need to keep organisms known to cause foodborne disease out of food, including raw milk. At the same time, lets educate health care providers about diagnosis, use and misuse of antibiotics; improve the health of the nation through nutrition and exercise; create a more robust surveillance and investigation system in government; and promote sustainable agriculture and the right to have choices in what we eat. If there is a reason that food safety (preventing pathogens from entering the food supply) should be at odds with these other goals, enlighten me. In the meantime, I will stay diligent in keeping poop and the pathogens that ride along in the turd out of food, and educating industry about the dangers and known prevention strategies, as well as educating consumers about the possible risks, including those associated with but not limited to raw milk.
This is the type of talk that gets turned into a raw milk safety urban legend. The next thing you know it will be sighted as a fact on one of the pro raw milk websites or in a pro raw milk book. The newest version of The Untold Story of Raw Milk is filled with raw milk urban legends.
Its pathetic and scary at the same time. People believe this crap and then serve their children raw milk. The next thing you know there is another raw milk outbreak and children and their naive parents become the next victims. Leaders in the raw milk community do their spin and then it becomes the next raw milk urban legend. Its a sick cycle.
Families whose children become ill from raw milk experience a similar phenomenon of abuse that happens to rape victims. The prosecuting attorney turns everything around and blames the victim for her rape or denies that the rape happened. She gets victimized for the 2nd time. Thats what happens to families who decide to sue because their child became ill from raw milk. The raw milk community victimizes them for a second time.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves!
cp
Can you back up your opinion or belief with some scientific evidence?I would like to see it and I promise to keep an open mind to what it says,I may have a few follow up questions though.
Notice there is no response to you blog. Not surprising considering CP’s emotional flame.