There have been more than a few shots taken at the Weston A. Price Foundation over the last few days—by Amanda Rose at Ethicurean, by me in my July 14 post, and by various speakers at the American Veterinary Medical Association, not to mention individuals who have commented here.
Sally Fallon, the head of the foundation, produced a detailed response (following my previous post) to the charge raised by a number of people that competitive exclusion doesn’t prevent pathogens from surviving in raw milk from pasture-fed cows.
And I found myself wondering: Why can’t Sally and some of the foundation’s supporters who have also commented (like Miguel and Mark McAfee) simply admit that pathogens occasionally do survive well enough in raw milk to make a few people ill? Given that it’s such a small number—perhaps 2,000 people a year, according to my presentation to the AVMA—why not simply acknowledge that and move on?
Now, in what follows, I’m just speaking for myself, not the Weston A. Price Foundation. What I think a lot of people like me fail to grasp sometimes is just how differently many supporters of the Weston A. Price Foundation tend to view the world. For one thing, there’s a huge trust issue.
Take the issue of competitive exclusion, on which much of the discussion involving Sally and others has focused. From what I can see, this is a slim place to hang your hat, whether you are in favor or against raw milk, simply because there’s such a paucity of research. But my sense is that Sally and others just don’t trust the labs or methodology or researchers involved in the limited studies to date (even though Organic Pastures Dairy Co. sponsored the BSK Lab research).
Beyond that, in the WAPF scheme of things, many if not most of even the 2,000 illnesses from raw milk are mistaken, since the system is out to “get” raw milk. When public health investigators learn that a sick individual consumed raw milk, the investigation seems to end at that point (though public health officials disagree). As a result, the WAPF view doesn’t trust the epidemiological evidence, because it seems so biased against raw milk.
I think this view, this mistrust, and its fast-growing popularity in the consumer world, drives the public health officials bonkers. That’s why so many came down on the WAPF’s huge web presence at the AVMA meeting. They can’t fully comprehend what the WAPF is saying but, amazingly, growing legions of consumers, looking around at all their diabetic and obese friends and relatives, get it immediately.
Even among some raw milk advocates, like Amanda Rose, in her recent Ethicurean article on the WAPF, we see similar frustration. She says at one point: “Another example of problematic content on the WAPF sites is an article ‘Is Raw Milk Safe for Babies?’ that lists contaminated milk outbreaks in California from 1982 to 1996. According to the WAPF article, no sicknesses from raw milk occurred in that time, yet multiple outbreaks were linked to pasteurized milk and other foods. Many Californians however may remember that there were a series of outbreaks linked to raw milk in that timeframe, for example this one, cited in a published article on outbreaks in the early 1980s.”
Yet if you look at that study, you find that it isn’t based on specific reported cases from raw milk, but rather from a mathematical analysis of all salmonella cases, and an assumption that many were from raw milk. The words “estimate” and “estimated” are used a lot. If you don’t trust the public health authorities to begin with, then this study does little to address that mistrust—in fact, it just heightens the mistrust.
All of which leads to the big enchilada around mistrust—chronic illness. In the WAPF scheme of things, it is the epidemic rates of heart disease, asthma, allergies, Crohn’s, obesity, and diabetes that are the biggest public health problems. To see government authorities sending undercover agents to collect evidence against raw milk dairies, and harass them with questionable listeria tests, in that context seems ridiculous.
So, much as I and others might like to see the WAPF just make a few admissions about competitive exclusion and risk of illness to children, so the organization wouldn’t be so susceptible to pot shots from public health authorities, the reality is that it’s more complicated than that. To the WAPF way of thinking, I suspect, if you give up on the seeming little things, you get co-opted on the bigger things as well.
As I’ve said a number of times, the raw milk issue, which seems so narrow, is really a proxy issue for many other public health challenges. When the raw milk proponents and opponents are speaking entirely different languages, simply raising the decibel level on one side or the other won’t resolve the situation. I think it’s going to take many more sessions like the AVMA raw milk symposium, which involve simply hearing out the other side, before there’s any chance of developing common ground. Do enough people have the stomach for that?
(Here, at long last, is a summary Amanda Rose put together of her study of raw milk drinkers, along with my presentation to the AVMA raw milk symposium.)
Robert Kenner, director (producer?) of the movie Food, Inc. has made the point that our massive agribusinesses are extremely secretive about how they go about producing food (yet not quiet at all about self promotion and sales promotion). The incredible power that agribusiness has to control our food market is frightening. And while the power they have to fill our grocery stores is frightening enough, their power to control information ought to downright terrify.
I saw a container of milk today, pasteurized of course, for your protection. The milk processors are not pressured one bit to explain the many potential negatives of a lifetime consuming dead, processed food productsnot on a label, not anywhere. They solemnly claim that their processing is GOOD for me. They worry not a bit that government regulators might ask them to please just give a little and mention that maybe, just maybe, by avoiding fresh, whole, natural, live foods, consumers might be risking a lifetime of degenerative disease, diabetes, obesity, low immune function, heart disease, and cancer. Hmm…
David is very correct to point out the lack of trust WAPF supporters have for agribusiness and its government allies. Some wonder why they are willing to trust WAPF. My personal answer is this: I expect perfection from no man, friend or enemy. Nevertheless I do trust my friends well enough, and I happen to consider the WAPF a friend, and the paradigm of health that drives the WAPF a friend of sorts as well. The others, well, I wouldnt trust them as far as I could throw a potato chip.
If studies haven’t been done to clearly define the risks, then they should be done. I’ve seen kidney failure, and probably muti-system failure. I see heart disease (I work on a cardiac floor), diabetes and obesity every day I go to work! I’ve read Michael Pollan’s book, and although I think farmers need support, I think the Corn Council was irresponsible paying money for their come-back commercials about high fructose corn syrup. That kind of thing is what causes me more distrust in big business and government! It is a joke among people I know, even the ones who have never heard of Michael Pollan. If they will pay money for that kind of thing, what scruples do they have? And who do they fool besides themselves? All these meetings on raw milk pathogens fall under the same umbrella.
Mary Martin, you’re not a crazy person. I don’t think so for a second. I have a lot of respect for you, and there are tears in my eyes to even type that.
I do think the institutions on BOTH sides of this discussion need called back to their missions, and need to have some accountability for themselves. Fear causes people to overreact. I’m as guilty as the next person. There is overreaction on both sides, and it is sometimes difficult to wade through it. I WOULD like to see on WAPF site, studies quoted that say raw milk is sometimes unsafe.
From my point of view, any such open attack on WAPF is simply a rebound – an irresponsible one. The government agencies that regulate raw milk DON’T have a leg to stand on. Their statements and the regulations built upon them ARE just as flawed. Frustrated? Sure. I see doctors who are frustrated because they aren’t permitted to promote particular medications. But it is wrong for them to do so. The doctor who likes Zocor might not see it that way, but most of the patients who walk through his door DO.
I agree that it is complicated. If you’re going to make a statement though, do your homework, and give me a link to the study you’re basing your statement on, not to a blog. Give me a link to a Google book I can read the text of. Let me read it for myself. If Mark M. points out a flaw, and you don’t mention it, I’m going to look for it anyway, and you can count on that now, so anyone promoting pasteurization had better be more clear in their presentations and account for that.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hot-dog23-2009jul23,0,1642891.story?track=rss
The suit, by a group that promotes a meat-free diet, seeks to require cancer-risk labels on processed meats. Nutrition experts say foods that go along with the hot dog may be more dangerous.
Animals to include birds have been deficating on farmers fields for centuries. Why have there been so many huge "outbreaks" lately? What is the cause?
Is it poor farm management from carelessness or ignorance? Or is it in the processing process?
As pointed out numerous time, could it be the poor depleted soil? Isn’t that one of the big problems with farming in India (Western practices ruined farming)? Artificial fertilizer? Uncured manure (would fall under poor farming practices)?
Why is it so hard for most people to see the steady decline in health that we are experiencing?Is it because the standard of good health has declined over the years?Maybe people are confused about what contributes to our health.Does health insurance,regular checkups,vaccinations and prescription drugs contribute to our health?
Where does this confusion originate?This is where the issue of TRUST comes in.Your health is directly influenced by what you eat or don’t eat.There is a campaign to hide this truth from people.In fact it begins when we are born(in a hospital ,of course) and continues in public school classes and through the media.We believe that germs make us sick even though there is evidence all around us that it is the terrain that determines whether or not germs survive.Competitive exclusion won’t protect us from "pathogens" ,but then isn’t that what protected us in the past when food was preserved by fermenting?Beer ,cheese ,kefir,pickles ,sausage….there is a long list of fermented foods that have been eaten for centuries.When someone in a lab tells me they can take the DNA fingerprints of a "pathogen" from a stool sample and compare them to the fingerprints of a "pathogen" found in a milk sample,I am skeptical.I see this as just another aspect of the campaign to get me to eat artificial,sterilized phood.
This campaign relies on us believing that it’s assumptions are true without presenting any believable evidence.It looks like bullsh*t to me, and to a steadily growing number of people.
I havent gotten to the blog for about a week, so Ill comment in this post.
Per your comment of 7/18:
** Do you think experienced milk farmers are the target for hosting cowshare programs? Small family farms are the target. Think about it for a moment. Most small family farms are not dairy producers.**
Seems to me that most farmers who consider hosting a cowshare already milk cows many family farms dont have cows (or goats). Those farmers who have just a few cows and drink their milk, know a lot about sanitation and probably a good bit about pathogen management. Most probably dont share miguels understanding of the immense importance of the pastures and hayfields soil quality and currently rely on antibiotics to reduce pathogens. These folks need to do a lot of research on how cows make healthy milk before they provide real milk to the public. In many ways, thats what a HACCP tries to ensure.
From the Rela Milk cowshare trifold you mentioned at http://www.realmilk.com/documents/CowShareTrifold.pdf
**Please note that we do NOT recommend consumption of raw milk from conventional confinement dairies or dairies which produce milk intended for pasteurization.**
Which is worse? Germs in our Food or the ANTIBIOTICS that Kill Them?
by Martha Rosenburg
A very distrubing read!
Question should a HAZARDOUS MATERIAL sign be hung on all food produced by big Ag. ?
You’re Appointing WHO? PLEASE OBAMA, SAY IT’S NOT SO!
by Jeffery Smith
"The person who may be responsibile for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been appointed US FOOD SAFETY CZAR" So says Jeffery Smith
Not good news and why in the once upon a time land of the FREE are we calling them CZARS is that an in your face way of telling us where we really stand?
The list is endless with respect to the number of critters that defecate and decay on land and water. Wild or domestic the problem rests not with manure per se uncured or otherwise. It rests with toxic, invasive and unnatural practices
There are millions of gallons and tons of herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers fed, genetically inserted and applied yearly to animals, crops and farmland as well as antibiotics and hormones. We subject ourselves and our children to a similar if not more invasive protocol and then when things go bad in our insane wisdom we blame the bacteria, the food we eat or the prion.
Bacteria, food or prions are not the problem; its what they have become due to our invasive, poorly understood and presumptuous attempt to take control.
I have little trust in officials who use what Joel Salatin refers to as a politically-messaged spin to obfuscate the truth.
Ken Conrad
Nice picture of the tug of war…..remember that loser gets drug through the manure pit. At least that is how it ended at our spirit rallies in High school. We would fill a pit full of water and manure and we would all end up covered in it when we would get pulled through it eventually. That was fun. Real fun…probiotic fun.
I just got a warm letter from Dr. Nega Beru, Director of the Office of Food Safety at the FDA addressing the lack of response from the FDA on the pending Citizens Petition Doc # FDA 2009-0003 ( a request to narrowly amend CFR 1240.61 and allow tested inspected raw milk to cross state lines and be sold in other states that allow raw milk sales…it is a crime to do so at this time ). To my surprise it was not a letter of rejection. It was a nicely written letter advising the petitioner ( CREMA and me ) that the FDA has not had the time or resources "to be able to reach a decision" on the petition during the last 180 days and that it would take more time.
I expected an outright rejection and I am delighted that the petition is getting what appears to be a review ( not sure what kind yet ). Time will tell.
I wrote back an equally kind and considerate letter asking for a meeting with him to discuss further. I shared with him that a very prestigious west coast university is commencing a study that has been nicknamed a "Pastuerization Intolerance" study and that the FDA needs to be on top of this issue and I wanted to help them help us.
We will see where this all leads.
For the record…I do believe that raw milk can make some people ill. But…I also do not agree that we all understand or commonly share the same definition of "ill". What might be "ill" to some one is an immune improvement and adjustment to another. So we all have lots to learn and much to open our minds too.
For the record…I also have seen thousands of people made well by raw milk with out any side effects.
For the record….raw milk just like any other food can be done well or not so well.
For the record I believe that there are two raw milks in America..one for people and one for the pastuerizer.
This discussion must go to another place. A place where we agree that human health is not separate from the biology found in nature. Human health is a mirror image of nature and biodoversity. Food matters and biodoversity matters. Health is not an abundance of FDA approved drugs or availability of more doctors. Health is not a state of hyper cleanliness or sterility but rather health is a dynamic balance which includes trillions of good bacteria in us and their food sources as our best friends. True health is grounded on the foundations of solid whole food nutrition and immune strength. These things require embracing the laws of nature not fighting them synthetically.
Perhaps Dr. Beru and I will have some breakfast in Maryland and talk about all this and drink some raw milk together. He and his delegation from the FDA visited OPDC about five years ago. They even took a group picture in front of the creamery. So he knows who he is speaking with. We could be old friends…it is just a matter of tone and the goals he is trying to achieve. Raw milk is coming on. The FDA needs to be on board.
Amanda….great work on your study. I am impressed. According to your study us raw milk consumers are a group of: Smart college educated people, that love beneficial bacteria, follow WAP, actively encourage our friends and families to eat well, and deeply believe that tested raw milk is as safe as pastuerized milk.
I agree!!!
Thanks for the confirmation of what I hear every day. Good gut check with hard data to back it up.
All the best,
Mark McAfee
Ken, I couldn’t agree with you more. I believe that these follies are a huge contribution to the continuous and increased diseased population. Too many unnatural and poor practices from many avenues; the food chain, medical community, food services/processing, etc. Slow genocide of living things. And again, I cannot see any change from tptb, only more of the same.
I got an email at work yesterday, saying that healthcare workers will be a first to get the new pig flu vacc. An untested shot. I will decline.
The article linked above vividly depicts exactly what we have been discussing over the last few years. There are 2 sides and they are 180 degrees apart.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
George Orwell
AND WHICH SIDE IS WEARING THE BOOTS?