What to Expect When CA Regulators Conduct a Survey to “Improve the Way That We Teach People About” Raw Milk
Friday, May 8, 2009 at 01:16PM 
I’ve been wrestling with a raw-milk dilemma of sorts. Not a huge dilemma, and not something in which my decision will have a lot of impact.
But the more I think about it, the more agitated I find myself becoming.
Here’s the situation: A few days ago a California reader forwarded me a one-page statement of “Research Survey Information” the California Department of Public Health and the Del Norte County Health Department have been distributing, presumably intended for residents of Del Norte County. It said these public health agencies “are conducting a research survey to learn more about raw (unpasteurized) milk.”
Del Norte County, you may remember, is the California county that had an outbreak of illness from campylobacter just about a year ago, which was attributed to raw milk distributed under a local cow-leasing program at Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms. According to a report prepared by the California Department of Public Health, 16 people became ill—15 of whom had consumed milk from the cow-leasing dairy and one who was a dairy employee.
Part of what made the case noteworthy was that a public health employee was the most severely stricken, contracting Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a complication from campylobacter, after consuming raw milk for the first time just days previous. She became a client of Bill Marler, the food poisoning lawyer, who described the case on his blog a few weeks ago.
A couple other things worth pointing out. The state report on the illnesses provided data on the raw-milk-drinking history of those individuals who became ill, and provided some anti-raw-milk propaganda as well, which I discussed in a posting.
Finally, the state report recommended that officials “Continue public education efforts regarding health risks associated with consuming unpasteurized milk and unpasteurized milk products.” One of the authors of that October 2008 report was Amy Karon, Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the California Department of Public Health.
I mention the recommendation and Amy Karon because the new one-page notification of a survey names her as the principal contact. It alerts Del Norte County residents receiving notification that “we will be calling your household and other households in your area to ask household members age 18 and older what they think about raw milk and raw milk products.” Participation is voluntary, participants are told, and “the information provided by you and others in your community will help us better understand what people think about raw milk, and improve the way that we teach people about this food.”
I telephoned Amy Karon, whose name and number are shown on the survey notification, to ask her a few basic questions about the survey—whether it was limited to Del Norte County, how many people she expected to be surveyed, when the results might be available, how I might obtain a copy of the questions to be asked, and how the public might access the results. This last question, I thought, was particularly important, since generally, the results of such surveys are revealed mainly in obscure scientific papers that may or may not be published.
So when I asked her my first question about how the survey came about, she said, “This is a research survey. It is just starting. To give you information could bias the results.” When I started to ask another question, she said, “I can’t tell you anything else about this,” and hung up the phone.
Now, “bias the results” is a common concern for anyone conducting surveys of any type. If your respondents aren’t representative of the population at large (perhaps more or fewer raw milk drinkers than the general population, for example), the results might be considered skewed from a scientific perspective.
So my dilemma is this: Should I be respectful of Amy Karon’s concerns, and excuse her refusal to answer even the most basic questions about the survey? Or should I and others with an interest in the subject be prodding her to be more forthcoming, and let concerned consumers know such basic facts as when the survey might be completed and how they might obtain the results?
I’ve conducted a number of surveys over the course of my writing and business career, and can appreciate her desire to obtain the most complete and accurate data possible. But I’ve never conducted one on an issue of pressing public concern. I think if I were, I would want to be open and forthright about the whole thing, even if it meant possibly skewing the results.
My big problem is that, even though Amy Karon and her colleagues may be dedicated scientists and public servants, I have no faith in their employer to allow an objective survey, and for the results to be generally disseminated. Here's one example of a question I can imagine being on the survey:
Q: Since the outbreak of campylobacter at Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms, the following statement best describes my feelings about raw milk:
A. I am very afraid of raw milk.
B. I am beyond very afraid, I am terrified by raw milk.
C. I get an upset stomach if someone even mentions raw milk.
D. If that dairy starts distributing raw milk again, I think I'll have an anxiety attack.
E. All of the above.
Given these kinds of questions (and I suspect I'm not that far off) I fear that whatever the results, the message to the public will be that consumer respondents (the actual number doesn’t even matter) are very worried about the dangers of raw milk, and therefore we must continue to be diligent in opposing consumption. When government regulators talk about wanting to "improve the way that we teach people about this food," what they really mean is they want to come up with more effective techniques for disseminating anti-raw-milk propaganda.
Reader Comments (32)
David, you musn't interfere and bias the results.
I spoke with Dr. Karon just a few days ago.
It was a very brief conversation. As soon as I introduced myself....she could not get off the phone quick enough. I did ask her if she needed 10,000 email contacts of CA raw milk drinkers so she could broaden her research. She refused the offer. Said it was just a local effort to collect information.
She began to breath and speak quickly and then said goodbye....almost a hand-up but not quite.
I have spoken with people in the area that I know very well and they said that everyone except for the health department employee that got GBS... recovered quickly. Some with the help of a round of antibiotics and others with just some time. The GBS patient is doing better and better but still has substantial problems with her neurostatus.....but gets better every week. She has got Marler doing his thing for her.
Right now several black market raw milk clubs are operating in the Humbolt area. We have been told that if we tried to bring in OPDC raw milk it would be seized by the county health department.
I think of Humbolt county as a different state and not really part of CA. It is the state of Humbolt. It is so remote and inaccessible.
They are big marijuana growers yet they are the only county in CA that bans the sale of raw milk officially. Kinda weird.
The Humbolt Creamery is in Bankruptcy and the local dairies that send their raw milk to that creamery are really hurting and have not been paid for months.
I saw that we raw milk people scare the hell out of them. Their health department is so very small and has no idea about the rest of CA and its raw milk market.
The good news is this....perhaps when the data is collected, they will get a clue and resort their feelings and address the real origins of the reasons for the black market and allow tested and inspected raw milk flow into that area.... or am I just smoking some Humbolt alfalfa and dreaming again.
Mark
Is there a reason to be rude? Her PR training leaves much to be desired.
"what they really mean is they want to come up with more effective techniques for disseminating anti-raw-milk propaganda."
So far tptb have not proven this to be untrue.
Mark, you're dreaming from the smoking.....
I now know that you are a regulator or public health agency representative of some kind.
How can you defend the use of public funds to collect information to teach people to not eat a certain food.
Did any public health department ever spend a dime or a second of time to try and convince people not to eat spinach, peanuts, pistacios, tomatoes, or any other foods?
Not one second and not one penny has been spent....except for the anti raw milk research being done by the rude biased Dr. Karon.
....Our leadership in CA will not put up with kind of bias, unfounded missuse of public funds and corruption.
Trust me.
Mark
Mark
This is THE scientific test that I listen to every day my body expresses to me how good it feels and I can not ignore it so all the fear mongering NONSENSE be damned.
I am glad Lykke you STILL AS YET are able to speak FREELY and I will do the same but how much longer will these rights exist? I am sorry that question even could be seriously asked here in the good old USA.
Nevertheless Lykke I hope you and the other lady CP enjoy the slumber party at Amanda's.
Lykke I think I have posed to you about 20 questions by now so here is another will you ever answer even one?
Also Lykke before I retried I also had a real job I manufactured a real product that went into your car, your home appliances, your power tools, your electronis gadgets, and even used by your medical providers all made in the USA [for 115 years]. Until a wise ceo began sending our unique production machinery that I helped to design and build to our enemy China.
proposal before USDA to eliminate producer-handlers' exemptions from the federal milk order pricing
Sorry Mark, I was joking in response to your previous statement. Meant no offense.
"Now, “bias the results” is a common concern for anyone conducting surveys of any type. If your respondents aren’t representative of the population at large (perhaps more or fewer raw milk drinkers than the general population, for example), the results might be considered skewed from a scientific perspective."
Del Norte County population; 29,100 - Jul 2008 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division) Of these 29100 people; how many consume raw milk daily? Weekly? sporatically? People from different backgrounds, cultures, eductions levels all view the same thing differently; how will this survey take that into account? How would this small population represent the total population? How would it show realistic results?
This article points out studies and also points out educated "professionals" who claim "There are absolutely no health benefits from consuming raw milk.". Do they not read or are they so narrow minded (bought and paid for) that they cannot open thier eyes?
It should be a choice of the consumer, not the govt entities. If the govt really wanted to prevent "outbreaks" they'd teach farmers better methods of prevention (this would be for all foods), they'd teach the processors and transportation facilities better ways, they'd teach how to keep animals healthy without the use of chemicals, etc. This is not done. It appears to be thier way or no way.
by Mathew Climtile Enviromental Health News 1/6/09
Even the veggans are not left out of consuming other people or other animals "excreted" antibiotics and drugs. None of us can say we are drug free and that is indeed "frustrating".
Enjoy your veggies at you own risk!
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/antibiotics-in-crops
"Smart people never buy snake oil twice", Roger McAfee (1939-2006)
Lykke, CP and other government naysayers....take note. There is a reason why people of all kinds drink and rely upon raw milk. It is changing lives for the better. No science needs to prove this....if raw milk was not so important...it would never sell at three times the price,with such deep purpose and passion.
Mark
is this in farm country? family cows?
http://www.city-data.com/city/Crescent-City-California.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Norte_County,_California
Hugh,
I believe that is for the whole county. Maybe they count all the Bigfoots as 2 or more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film
"if raw milk was not so important...it would never sell at three times the price,with such deep purpose and passion."
Mark, you do have a good point here. For some it is the freedom of choice
I don't understand what you mean since I have answered many if not all of your questions over time (perhaps not with the desired answer, but did take a stab at them). Sometimes the questions get repeated on this site (or I might miss them when not online), and I just assume you are addressing someone else if I already commented on the topic. Keep in mind too that my *personal" opinions on raw milk keep shifting around as I think about all the pro and con arguments; in contrast, this blog personality often tries to take the point of view of TPTB in a general way (they are by no means a uniform group), and share thoughts from that perspective.
Why no sense of humor on this blog? It isn't natural. Humor is a good tool to work through differences no matter how important and serious the topic (and raw milk is hardly the most pressing or serious issue in the world). Even the joke by Sylvai about smoking was taken as a serious insult, geez.
And, why so much conern about a small survey? Why fear it? Just a couple weeks ago the discussion here was about how the government should conduct more surveys and studies on raw milk. Given this reaction, what scientist iin the future s going to want to do any studies in such a toxic atmosphere...and on a product that is consumed by very few people and doesn't cause that much illness or haven proven benefits in the big picture of health and safety?
Why not be open about surveys? Why insert covertness surrounding something so simple as “are conducting a research survey to learn more about raw (unpasteurized) milk.” ?
Is this the govt entity that is trying to learn about raw milk? Or is the govt entity trying to learn what the public knows about raw milk? That isn't very clear on what the projected goal is.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/05/health_experts_say_food_supply.html#more
"Concerned about health, Mari Tardiff, the California nurse, bought organic and less processed foods whenever possible. She decided to try raw milk, believing the unpasteurized product would supply helpful organisms.
Instead, she got a dose of an unhelpful germ: campylobacter, easily killed by pasteurization. The ensuing intestinal illness triggered a debilitating nerve disease. Tardiff communicated by blinking for months, and still cannot stand or use her hands.
"This has been life-altering," she said. "All I want to say is, 'Be careful.'"