Participants at Raw Milk Symposium Dump on the Weston A. Price Foundation; What Is Its Responsibility?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 01:14PM 
Last Thursday, I highlighted food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler’s seeming suggestion in his planned presentation to the American Veterinary Medical Association's raw milk symposium that the Weston A. Price Foundation could be in his line of sight for legal action if illnesses result because it advises consumers to drink raw milk.
Well, it turns out that Marler’s broadside against the Weston A. Price Foundation was probably the milder of the criticisms lodged against the organization. Upset about its approach in actively encouraging raw milk consumption was a definite subplot at the symposium.
Probably four or five of the anti-raw-milk presenters at the symposium featured website snapshots of the front page of the RealMilk web site (see above). At least a couple included lists of all the benefits the Weston A. Price Foundation ascribes to raw milk.
The benefit that came under the most criticism was that pathogens can’t survive in milk from pasture-fed cows. “Raw milk is a very good carrier of human pathogens,” countered one presenter who highlighted the “benefit.”
Another presenter quoted critically from a 2004 letter on the “Safety of Raw Milk” on the site: “When cows are not stressed (grass-fed and kept healthy) they simply do not slough off pathogens in their manure.” Letter on the “Safety of Raw Milk,” Real Milk website (5/19/04)
Even the presentation by raw milk advocate Amanda Rose relied heavily on the benefits of raw milk listed by the Weston A. Price site. Her survey of raw milk drinkers listed 13 statements about raw milk, including “Raw milk is a food that is uniquely safe,” and “Pasteurized milk causes lactose intolerance, and “Pasteurized milk has all of the vitamins cooked out of it.” Such statements received heavy favorable endorsements from survey participants. The statement that received the least support was this from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “Drinking raw milk is like playing Russian roulette with your health.”
A number of participants expressed admiration for the Weston A. Price’s ability to promote its viewpoint. One noted that if you type “raw milk” into Google, five of the first six citations are from the Weston A. Price Foundation. “How do we get that kind of attention?” asked one anti-raw-milk opponent. “We don’t have an advertising budget.”
I didn’t want to tell him, but such high rankings on Google aren’t a function of ad budgets—they are a function of link exchanges, traffic, and other such factors.
The dumping on WAPF was a reminder of several things. First, it reminds us how little objective information is out there on the Internet about raw milk. The WAPF’s information may be inaccurate in certain places, and overly enthusiastic in others, but it fills a void created by the fear mongering of the FDA and the CDC.
Second, it reminds us of the WAPF’s responsibility in providing accurate information. One of the attendees at the AVMA raw milk symposium was Mary McGonigle-Martin, the mother of Chris Martin, a seven-year-old who became very ill during the fall of 2006, allegedly from raw milk. During a discussion at the end of the symposium about the WAPF site, Mary said, “I was one of those educated parents that almost killed my child. I got to the Weston A. Price site” and saw reassuring information about raw milk’s safety, she said. Another participant said, “I’d love to see there (on the WAPF site) information...that raw milk can contain these pathogens.”
The organization may have been unduly hammered, but some of the criticisms are worth the organization’s attention as its influence expands to fill the growing interest in raw milk.
Reader Comments (35)
In Switzerland the raw milk is very expensive, but they have an excellent system for making it safer than most other foods at the grocery store. Why aren't we out in Switzerland studying this system? Why does it seem that in the US the argument is between no regulation and banning it?
Crohn's disease? A growing epidemic among children!
Industrial milk is adulterated.Water and non-fat dry milk are added,fat is removed.Antibiotics are in the milk.The Industry will say "NO",but they only test for a handful of antibiotics while dozens of different antibiotics are used on cows many of which are not recommended for use on lactating cows.Genetically modified hormones are injected into the cows.Artificial vitamin D is added.The milk is homogenized and pasteurized which destroys much of the beneficial properties of milk.All of these changes have been made with the "bottom line" in mind.Longer shelf life increases profits and reduces costs,but by forgetting quality the Industry has left the public with very few reasons to consume Industrial milk.If they really want to understand why so many people have given up Industrial milk all they have to do is ask.I know lots of people who drink fresh whole milk.I can't think of any of them who would go back to the Industrial stuff after tasting real milk.
The Industry needs to realize that it will have to change more than it's public relations campaign to gain back what it has lost.Blaming the people who have given up on Industrial milk won't get them anywhere.They need to take a long hard look at what their Industry has become in the relentless pursuit of incredible profits.
It will be very hard to convince anyone to drink Industrial milk if it makes them feel ill.Unfortunately for the Dairy Industry that is what a growing number of people are saying about their milk.It is the inevitable outcome when quality is sacrificed in the pursuit of profit.
I routinely give the raw milk to my dogs as well but I don't think it was being discussed as a food for animals. I would think it more in character for something like the food network.
Although I've always thought mandatory spay/neuter and mandatory pasteurization were flip sides of the same regulatory coin (and Sen. Dean Florez seems to be on opposite poles on these two issues), what is AVMA's agenda regarding raw milk or WAPF?
Chris Lewis
I owe a lot to Sally and her group, it's the reason we milk cows, it's the reason this reformed vegetarian has a child running around the farm, and hears fermenting crocks bubbling as I type....
The message is already out, and nothing can change that...no lawsuits or laws. Sea change is coming, and will be driven by those who aren't SAD.
That being said, the FDA spokespeople are absolutely hyperbolic on the dangers of raw milk, so the two sort of cancel each other out. You have to put both their stances in perspective, because neither of them has all the facts, nor are either of them trying to get at the real truth.
I liked what Melisa mac said about raw milk in Switzerland. Raw milk should be painstakingly produced. Pasteurization absolutely does have the downside of encouraging producers to be sloppy with sanitation. I have seen milk lines green with algae at a commercial dairy.
I also agree with Dave Milano - science changes. Once the majority of humankind drank raw milk (we are mammals, after all). After the advent of Pasteur, pasteurization became the new standard for large-scale production of milk. It should not be taken as a given that it should be the model for all small-scale production, however. If regulators, many of whom have never practiced animal husbandry themselves, cannot get their heads around that fact they should step aside and make room for people with more flexible brains and open minds.
Is there a link that describes the system Switzerland uses to enhance raw milk safety? You are right, the system in the US is not consiistent or dependable with regard to sanitation/safety, and I wouldn't trust it.
TPTB may feel that they can overwhelm the foundation, but attacking the grassroots has never been a winning strategy. People will eventually win out, even if their choices are here and there impeded by an aggressive and powerful attack. In the end though, the only thing that will bring the WAPF down is what is now (slowly but inexorably) bringing down the industrial food conglomerates—their own failure to provide what people need and want.
miguel correctly refers to the “dairy industry,” but that we have a dairy “industry” at all is sufficient evidence that there is a structural problem in our food supply. True dairying is no more an “industry” than is parenting. As miguel noted, industrial dairying is the result of applying business formulas to milk production. Those business decisions initially created profits, and in some quarters of the industry still do. But they also created negative effects—what economists call “externalities,” defined as costs that are very real, but not directly associated with the product or action. (Examples abound, like the automobile, which causes a certain amount of air pollution and in turn a certain amount of lung disease, which are very expensive, but not reflected in the price of a car.) Externalities may be difficult to identify at first, but they will eventually become evident if we care to look for them, and the biological and economic externalities associated with industrial dairying are now popping up like mushrooms. They include problems with human health, animal health, soil health, and problems with the economic health of small farms. (The latter is ironic in the extreme since small farms may be the only hope of correcting the mess, but the mess itself is busy exterminating them.)
We should remember that raw milk from a properly run farm is a wise choice not only for the product’s inherent healthfulness, but also because it makes good use of natural resources. Grass, the natural fuel for a cow’s rumen, is abundant and cheap. It is an absolute miracle of biology in that it grows easily (in good soil), is virtually indestructible (in good soil), and regenerates itself in perfect sync with a cow’s grazing patterns (in good soil). That it can be turned into a food that is so beautifully healthful is a gift of unimaginable proportion.
The WAPF’s position on real milk, given all that, generally makes a lot of sense to me, and apparently to many others.
It isn't so terrible a suggestion that WAPF at the very least, list on their website the risks, in statistics, of feeding a child raw milk and possibly also a description and the symptoms of HUS. There is not a problem in their promoting raw milk use in children, if they were to promote the facts of how many children have been made ill, to what extent, and what the symptoms were. There is risk. There is more risk in getting on a plane, but we still have planes. It should be our choice what we do. I would have more respect for their foundation if they acknowledged the risk though. I'm glad they're there. But I'd like them, and Mark M. and OP to be more considerate of those who have been made ill.
Maybe I'm in a unique position in my views, feeling that the government needs to stay off our dinner plate, yet wanting those who promote such things as feeding infants raw milk to be realistic in their promotion. Until I saved one of my own goats from Listeriosis, I honestly didn't even know what it was. But when I now read about it, I know that it lurks even in our own cornfields in the partially decomposed vegetable matter where my animals eat. One infectious disease doctor I've worked with told me that the source of most human cases was unknown.
I don't think Marler should sue WAPF, and I don't think our country should follow Sweden's regulation laws. We have enough regulations that are not consistantly, nor ethically enforced. Our country is in the process of trying to pass a rediculous regulation, the NAIS, even as the economy is failing and one state government is selling what amounts to public bonds on Craigslist.
Probably the reason why WAPF and OP don't want to admit even to the smallest of omissions is that it is like throwing a chicken to pit bulls. If the govt. was breeding and raising collies like Lassie instead, life for all of us would be much better. Culpability is on both sides, not one or the other. It isn't the government's problem, nor their decision.
Will either side post the potential side effects correctly/honestly? Or even listing ALL ingredients in foods, drugs/vaccs and the potential side effects and what changes were made to the product ie. they ways the system makes all milk standard?
I was at a Little League game the other night, and saw an obsese child on the opposing team. He must have been 200 lbs at least, with rolls of fat hanging over his baseball pants. He was a talented, coordinated and strong pitcher, who could barely run the bases. I felt sorry for him, and angry at his parents. Also angry at society for prioritizing his math/history/science/english education over his basic health. This kid needs to delay his education and put the time into fitness and nutrition until his problem is solved! Do SAT scores matter when you are so clearly headed for a heart attack at age 11? Clearly society and I have different ideas about children's needs. Do I trust this same society to dictate to me how to feed my children, or how to ensure the safety of their food?
I challenge anyone to find a case of serious HUS that came from ecoli 0157H7 where the person was not given an antibiotic.
Research shows that in nearly all or all cases "HUS comes on after Antibiotics are given". No antibiotics given.... no HUS.
According to new standards recently published by the national pediatriatrians associations....antibiotics are contraindicated in cases of Ecoli 0157H7.
Breast milk is not sterile and can contain pathogens. Babies do not get sick from pathogens that they suckle from their moms breast milk....they become immune to it.
Pathogens are only pathogens if you get sick from them. If you are immune are they pathogens?
For many raw milk drinkers... one of their goals is to not be subject to the list of pathogens that the CDC and the FDA shows can make people sick. Thats what true health is and freedom from illness is all about. The research supports this 100%.
Thats what a vaccination is....raw milk just does it naturally.
Mark
Are you out there?
I am still awaiting your comments on the Kefir pathogen challenge study.
You wanted to do a test....I have offered and need your comments. You do not respond.
What is up with talking with a big wind and then... nada... nothing??
Talk is cheap but action moves the world. Please indicate whether you are going to contribute to the study.
Mark
You don’t really need my help. I’m sure Ted Beals and Sally Fallon can contribute their ideas as to what would be the best idea for this type of study. If you’re serious and not just playing with me, I do hope you are able to collect money for this type of study. It seems in the past that you have consulted with professors at UC Davis. Maybe someone at this university would be interested in conducting the study.
Also, you need to learn when to keep your mouth shut. Stop talking about HUS as if you are an expert on the topic. You are not. I can find lots of cases of kids who contracted HUS and a few died and they were not given antibiotics. In the 1993 Jack-in-the-Box E.coli 0157:H7 outbreak (first in the nation) sick children were sent home because they did not know what they were dealing with. They ended up coming back to the hospital with HUS. They were not given antibiotics. Bill Marler and STOP (Safe Tables Our Priority) have all the details on these kids. I think you know Bill’s number.
Here’s another sober thought….the down side of a child or adult with a severe case of E.coli 0157:H7 who is not given antibiotics is that they can lose all or part of their colon. There is not a win here. In the movie Food Inc, Kevin Kowalcyk died because his colon died. Antibiotics may have saved his life.
Mark stop doing an HUS spin to make people think that raw milk contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 is no big deal. It is a big deal.
cp
I wonder what the child had as a new born, what damage did that episode cause? The hospital sent a 2 yr old home with bloody stools?, I am shocked at that.
Apparently, once again, tptb didn't do what they were supposed to. They had to go through the FIA to get information? Amazing. And the contaminated meats just keep on coming. It's the environment and the processing that is contaminating the foods.
http://healthbeat.yourtotalhealth.com/2009/06/food-inc-how-one-fatal-hamburg.html
http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/USOMilk/Chapter15.pdf
The most important thing is to keep E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, Brucella, Mycobacterium bovis, etc. from entering food in the first place. Raw milk has food safety vulnerabilities. So do other foods. All producers need to be diligent in their efforts to protect consumers. And, I think most care deeply and do their best. Mistakes happen, but those producers that put all the blame on the patients, the doctors, the government (anyone but them)..well, they seem to get sued more often.
I personally would not collaborate with any producer or advocacy group (raw dairy or otherwise) that values marketing over the truth. For example, there are erroneous statements such as the BSK study where scientific data is intentionally misinterpreted on the WAPF website. Why isn't there realistic information about food safety risks on that site? Moreover, why no descriptions of how good dairies are meticulous in their sanitation and description of how important these principles are when a farmer converts to raw dairy? There is no mentorship on that website beyond how to market better as a Chapter Leader.
Why is the deception needed? Shouldn't the values of raw milk be able to stand alone without such blatant misrepresentation? The loyalty runs so deep that they are given a pass by the majority of their members (sheeples?) to put up whatever works for marketing the product. Some of the comments here lately, and David’s subtle questions about these tactics, suggest that the opinion are perhaps more varied..
Most in science would not disagree that there are inaccuracies on other industry and government websites. Personally, would avoid all of it, including what Mark and cp proposed (as interesting as it may sound) because of the history of misusing scientific data relating to raw milk for ideological and marketing purposes.
Your post leaves me speachless.
I am utterly spell bound by your level of arrogance and disrespect.
I quoted new national standards for treatment of ecoli.
The best doctors in the world say do not give antibiotics.
Mark
Arrogance and disrespect….just look in the mirror and you will find it. You go too far with your inaccurate statements.
You stated ‘Research shows that in nearly all or all cases "HUS comes on after Antibiotics are given". No antibiotics given.... no HUS.’
Please site this research so that we all can read it.
There is a difference between doctors not recommending the use of antibiotics when E.coli 0157:H7 is suspect and the above statement you made. Stop spinning information to fit your version of what you think the story should be. Adults/children who have E.coli 0157:H7 contamination contract HUS without being given antibiotics.
By the way, what type of antibiotics shouldn’t be used? Did you read in the research you’ve claimed to have read that it is only a certain type that shouldn’t be used when someone has E.coli 0157:H7?
The next thing you know this inaccurate information about HUS will show up as fact on the real milk website or the next updated version of the Untold Story of Milk. Someday, people in the raw milk community will get a clue as to how the two of you operate.
Once again, stop downplaying the fact that pathogens in raw milk can have damaging consequences.
Here’s a sample of the type of information all raw milk producers should have available for their customers.
http://www.drakefamilyfarms.com/milk.htm
cp
It appears that many from all areas point fingers at everyone but themselves.
"I personally would not collaborate with any producer or advocacy group (raw dairy or otherwise) that values marketing over the truth. For example, there are erroneous "
There are erroneous statements from all areas. Working for an entity that pushes erroneous statements puts one in the same pot. You'd have to collaborate to keep your job.
"the history of misusing scientific data relating to raw milk for ideological and marketing purposes."
How is this different than govt propaganda? It is the same.
It's a shame that all consumers aren't able to easily find all aspects what truely happens to the food. misleading, neglect, lieing..... who to believe. People have no clue about thier foods.