Michael and Anita Puckett, owners of Dee Creek, after a federal judge refused to impose a plea agreement last September.At the raw milk symposium sponsored by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) last month, I argued in my presentation that all the fuss over raw milk isn’t because we have a public health problem, but rather because we have a political problem.
I pointed out that the authorities have cracked down harshly on raw milk producers, even though government data strongly suggests that we have few illnesses from raw milk in the context of America’s foodborne-illness problem. One of my slides used the Dee Creek episode of late 2005 to make the point that when there is a legitimate problem (people becoming ill from contaminated milk), the government goes overboard—in the case of Dee Creek, filing federal criminal charges, even after local authorities and civil plaintiffs had exacted significant financial penalties. I noted that a federal judge had refused to implement a plea bargain arrangement of one year probation because she felt the government had gone overboard.
Interestingly, my comments about Dee Creek appear to have encouraged Claudia Coles of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, one of the presenters, to insert two photos from Dee Creek–one showing cows that seem to be undernourished and one showing milking occurring in seemingly unsanitary conditions–into her formal presentation slides (Slides 12 and 13) that were posted by the AVMA reps who hosted the affair and posted all presenters’ slides. And she didn’t name the dairy they came from.
Then, last Friday, a reader, “Hope,” posted a link to the slides as part of a comment following my August 5 report on Michigan happenings. (“These are clean grass fed raw milk cows (slide #13)?? The poor animals are skin and bones.”) I wonder who Hope is, to out of the blue come up with those slides buried in an otherwise mildly anti-raw-milk presentation.
Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures posted a comment in response arguing that, from his perspective as a dairyman, the cows looked to be in good health, that dairy cows shouldn’t be fat.
Just to stir things along, give the entire matter an Internet life of its own, food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler yesterday posted an item on his blog, with a link to the Claudia Coles slide show, in which he said the slides came from Dee Creek. (“I really liked the pictures of the cows from the Dee Creek Farm that was linked to an E. coli O157:H7 Raw Milk Outbreak in 2005.”)
In political and ideological struggles, proponents of one side or the other try to paint broad-brush “truths” from one or another isolated incidents. Thus, the old Soviet Union would sometimes fill its news casts about the U.S. with crime footage, to suggest that the entire country was in the midst of a crime spree and everyone was at risk.
You see the same kind of thing going on with raw milk. I guess you could say that in the case of Dee Creek, I started it. But I didn’t dwell on it, didn’t say people hadn’t gotten sick. I simply made the point that the federal government rarely files criminal charges against producers of food that make a few people ill (and kill no one), and somehow made an exception with Dee Creek. The result has been campaign-style overkill.
What is it about raw milk that puts the opponents into such a tizzy? I’ve thought part of it has to do with the fact that children occasionally get sick, but children get sick from bad spinach and ground beef as well, and no one seems to go quite as crazy. Then I’ve thought it has to do with the fact that the officials see raw milk consumers as a bunch of kooks. I suspect that is part of the deal. But underneath it all, there is a political agenda, it seems clear. It has to do with extending government authority (we license you and tell you what to do), and imposing a certain view of health (i.e. the only good germs are dead germs, and those who believe germs can improve their health are subversives). It certainly is curious.
Important lessons can be learned. Lets not forget about that. Sally Fallon had a lot to say on that topic. This is what is so twisted about the leaders in the raw milk movement. http://www.realmilk.com/washington-lessons-learned.html
BYW, the term kooks to describe raw milk drinkers sounds familiar; that term was used recently somewhere else. Im trying to remember where I read it and who used it.
cp
Our constitution guarantees our God-given right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness.
The banning of a natural food that has nourished mankind throughout the ages is an infringement on our inalienable rights. A scientist that works for the PDA told me that the current law is based on 50 year old science. Pre-biotic science. Once our slow to change bureaucracy gets up with the times, maybe they will become pro-biotic, too.
Hopefully, we will have a remnant of farmers left.
Kimberly
http://hartkeisonline.com
Ron Paul Introduces three new Bills Designed to Restore Free Speech to Health
Why would a Congressman need to write not just one but three new bills concerning free speech? Is freedom of speech limited to only "approved or permitted’ subjects in America today? Does our speech today need to be licensed, boiled, nuked, irradiated, sterilized, pass the lawyers smell test and even turned snow white like the processed meat that was proudly shown in Food Inc?
For at least 4 years http://www.rawusa.org has been the standard that many raw milk dairymen have used. It has been reviewed by Dr. Ron Hull and others and it has been defended at the CA legislature at least three times during senate hearings. CDFA and the FDA had nothing to say about it….they refused to show up!!!
So there are great standards out there that work very well. Some farmers have even used it to brand their raw milk products.
As far as politics and raw milk are concerned….an old dairy friend of mine once said…."there are more politics in a gallon of milk than anyother place". So true especially when raw.
Here is exactly why….the farmer controls raw milk. It can not be controlled by big dairy interests and it can not be combined with other milk and it makes the huge milk murdering creamery system obsolete. It robs profits from the industrialization of milk. It also shortens shelf life….
Who in industry would ever want raw milk arround. Any one who gets a paycheck from GOT DEAD MILK…hates raw milk.
It starves the current paradigm and it feeds the people with a long lost, nearly forgotten whole sacred food.
There is a damn good reason that WAP and Sally make medical claims about raw milk.
Please read the PARSIFAL study and other EU based raw milk studies….it heals Asthma, IBS and Lactose Intolerance. It rebuilds the immune system and kids that drink it simply do not get colds or ear infections anymore ( or very very rarely ).
Also….did I mention is cheats doctors out of sick people standing, sitting patiently or impatiently for FDA drugs in the waiting rooms of America.
Who the hell would ever want raw milk….everyone currently with money and power would be starved in the current paradigm of illness.
But the people, the cows and the dairymen… thrive…..hallaluya!!!!!
Mark
The question ought to be: How can we convince the experienced farmersthose running the standard dairies so loved by the FDA and USDA and the drug companies and the industrial food complexto produce healthful milk and properly raise dairy cows?
Common confinement dairying is a continuous struggle to keep the animals barely healthy enough. Ive seen more than enough hyper-bred, 100-pound per day Holsteins with dull eyes, foot problems, GI issues, and of course enforced short lives, to satisfy any sadist. Its disheartening to say the least, and disgusting at times. Is there some mystery as to where those farmers can go to learn how to raise dairy cows properly? Of course not. There is no shortage of information on how to encourage healthy soils and healthy animals. What is really missing is a system that encourages farmers to pay attention to it.
The fact is that the industrial system encourages BAD practice. Farmers are forced by a fixed pricing system to produce not milk, but a commodity for processing, at the cheapest possible cost. The industrial system doesnt care as long as they are allowed to mask that bad quality with pasteurization, homogenization, and other processing. If farmers would extract themselves from the system and begin producing actual food instead of commodities, all the things Lykke asks for would happen naturally, because farmers would be judged (and remunerated!) based on the quality of their food. (Thats called free-market economics.)
One of the best barometers for healthy animals is their working life spans. Mark… whats the average working life of one of your milkers? My family cow is 11 years old and still going very strong. (A farmer told me recently that his father had a milker that lasted over 30 years!) The typical confinement dairy might get five years from a good cow.
I want my farmer to put his efforts into keeping his fields and animals in perfect health, not into producing huge quantities of cheap fodder for processing. I NEED a system that encourages that.
The reason that the farmers are not driven to respond to the raw milk market is because they are not connected to the markets…they are discnnected by the pastuerizer and the contracts and brands that isolate him from the people. Add to this the massive 75 year old infrastructure of creamery systems that need to be fed by cheap dirty milk and you have a huge challenge for the farmer….a farmer that knows nothing of consumers or the market systems or education about raw milk especially if he knows that his milk is not safe to drink becuase it contains pathogens. Mega CAFO systems when their raw milk is tested show a pathogen quite often. This is a huge stop sign for a farmer.
The average life span of a CA milk cow on a CAFO is 42 months….
At OPDC we have an average life span of about 8-10 years. We do not put limits on our cows…..they live as long as they are healthy and happy. Our oldest cows are 12 years old and doing great….they came to OPDC when we started in 1999 as 2.5 year old springers.
Mark
Amanda Rose contacted me about this statement a number of months ago. Without giving me any background about herself (I did not know who she was or what her interests were), she asked me (as president of WAPF) for the reference for this information and I told her that the table was compiled by Aajonus Vonderplanitz. She then states that I "did not seem concerned with its content." For the record, I was responding to her query about a reference, and was not told at the time that there were any concerns about the content of the article. I frequently receive emails asking me for references, and I assumed that this is what I was responding to.
Ms. Rose links with the following as an example of alleged "outbreaks" from raw milk: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=3140275. Below is analysis of this report showing that this article does not show conclusive evidence linking illness to raw milk, and in fact is typical of the highly biased attitudes in published reports alleging problems with raw milk.
As far as I know, we have analyzed every published report linking illness to raw milk in our Response to William Marler, posted here: http://realmilk.com/documents/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf. If there are any reports that we have missed, please let us know and we will take a close look at them and post the analysis.
ANALYSIS OF Assessment of the excess risk of Salmonella dublin infection associated with the use of certified raw milk. Public Health Rep. 1988 Sep?Oct; 103(5): 489?493.
This report made the absurd assumption that the causal relationship between raw milk and illness could be determined using statistics. After ascertaining all cases of S. dublin diagnosed between 1980 and 1983 and then asking them over the course of 1984 to 1985 whether they had consumed certified raw milk (the only source of which was Alta Dena), the authors calculated the incidence of S. dublin among certified raw milk users and the incidence in the general population, and then calculated the "excess" occurring in raw milk users and concluded that this fraction was "acquired from the milk."
In addition to recall bias, the authors noted that people who reported drinking raw milk at the time of illness may have been more likely to have been tested for S. dublin [thus creating a false association of raw milk with illness].
Most importantly, the authors offered no evidence that the milk drunk by these cases was contaminated with S. dublin or whether the strain matched that of the infecting organism. Correlation does not prove causation.
VERDICT: This report does not contain conclusive evidence linking illness to raw milk.
Using your approach/analysis, there’s never been an outbreak from pasteurized milk, deli meats, or any other food either. In fact, the epidemiological studies that linked raw milk consumption to protection against allergies must also be dismissed because the association was statistically significant, but by no means "conclusive evidence."
There is a double standard being applied when it comes to analysis of scientific papers relating to raw milk risks and benefits: if the paper is favorable for raw milk, then peer-review and statistics are described by advocates as excellent evidence, but if the paper shows anything negative (especially food safety risks) about raw milk it is described as no evidence.
I don’t think you can have it both ways – either reject all the science and call it a belief system/religion, or be fair and balanced when assessing the literature even if a study’s results don’t fit prior beliefs.
Well, that’s my 2 cents on it anyway.
Dave M. – I agree with you about the animal welfare problems with CAFO dairies, which also extend to the slaughterhouses. There are commercials like these that make me cringe…it is not honest to show the public a fantasy picture of a dairy cow’s environment that is nothing like the dry lot reality for most:
http://www.realcaliforniamilk.com/happycowstv/tvcommercials
You can follow these links and read my concerns over those "Safe for Babies" article in February of 2008:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/2/11/is-there-a-political-agenda-driving-the-suits-against-organi.html
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/2/12/musings-on-presidential-politics-and-food-a-last-word-on-raw.html
Thank you providing me with the reference on the outbreak table, but that was not actually the core point of our conversation. I pointed out my concern and you left it with "I’ll have my research assistant look into it." You did know me at the time from my work on the AB1735 campaign. Perhaps you forgot that we spoke on the phone, together with Mark.
In regards to those comments 18 months ago, if memory serves, the mutual colleague was concerned that we clear the matter up. From a research design framework, if you are going to exclude raw milk cases from outbreak tables because there was no pathogen in the milk (for example), you need to use the same methodology to exclude cases like hot dog outbreaks too. (My point is fairly similar to Lykke’s.)
The fact is that raw milk can have pathogens just like anything else.
It boggles my mind that people are afraid to look at data. That’s how we learn, by examining what we’re doing and then doing better next time. That’s how consumers learn and that’s how producers learn. If I’m not learning and growing then I figure I’m not exploring the world enough.
Let’s grow here, guys. Establish a research design and examine these outbreaks scientifically. Pool resources and cook up good analyses. What in the world are we afraid of? A pathogen?
Amanda
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61736-2005Jan9.html
http://nlsd.k12.oh.us/menus/nutrition/cereal-tiger%20power.pdf
KELLOGGS TIGER POWER ceral
Sugar is the 2nd ingredient and it also contains HFCS among other things. Too bad they "have" to add synthetic vitamins to promote the propganda that it is "healthy".
Why is it "ok" to blast all over the media these lies and raw milk isn’t permitted?
Even Mark McAfee at the SB201 hearings in April of 2008 referred to AltaDena as having pathogens all over the place. (Or something along those lines.) He probably remembers better. I have the transcript somewhere and should probably quote more precisely. I believe that here on this blog, Mark talks about the great lengths AltaDena took in sterilizing their operation and they still had pathogen problems. He was making the point I believe that other factors are more important (such as the cow’s diet).
For people not tracking on this, AltaDena was the source of California raw milk in the 80s and 90s when the table was written that I refer to in the Ethicurean article and that is posted on the WAPF website. It claims that there were no outbreaks associated with raw milk.
Amanda
Im still waiting for you to remove the misinformation on your realmilk website about the 2006 OPDC outbreak that involved my child. I underlined the information that is false.
http://www.realmilk.com/update-ca.html
Legal protection must be provided. In the last few weeks ( and the last several years as well ), OPDC has withstood a massively biased and unfounded attack on its business. Recently, you have felt this personally with the loss of your raw milk supply. During this period, OPDC was falsely accused of making four children ill. NO evidence has been produced (even though OPDC attorneys have requested it ) to show that in fact four childrens fecal samples tested positive for the same DNA of Ecoli 0157. Comprehensive testing pointed to other sources for the illnesses. From the CDFA and media reports it would appear that OPDC had critically injured four kids. This is not true at all. Only two children were hospitalized and they have fully recovered. These two childrens parents freely admit that other sources of food contamination were probably the source of illness including spinach and sushi. The truth was never told in the media or by CDFA.
1. State reports concluded that 5 children, both in Northern and Southern California, tested positive for the same DNA of Ecoli 0157:H7.
2. You posted the above information on October 23, 2006. At this time, neither children were fully recovered. Chris Martin was still in the hospital suffering from acute pancreatitis. He hadnt eaten since September 7th. Lauren Herzog has never fully recovered. She has stage one kidney disease.
3. Neither parents freely admitted that the source of the illness was spinach and sushi. The person making those statements to Mark McAfee was not the parent of either child. Besides, how would the parents know what food was contaminated?
4. The version of your truth was never told in the media or by the CDFA because it is not the truth.
Im asking you once again, please have the decency to remove this misinformation from your website. It is disrespectful to our children and families. We have suffered enough.
Thank you,
Mary McGonigle-Martin
http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/dairyman-begins-cheese-business-with-help-from-extension-program/12809.html
On my raw milk white paper:
http://RawMilkWhitePapers.com
I just put it together that one of the researchers in a very interesting Listeria study is Ron Hull who testified in the sb201 hearings in Calif. I don’t provide a visualization of it in the paper because I don’t have the data. (In many studies, authors provide data in a table, not a graph.) If someone could put us together, it would be great to add a display of that data. He has some salmonella data too but you guys should see the listeria study — different temperatures, different comparisons.
Take care everyone! I’m beginning my busy season in work. Leave the light on for me.
Amanda
In the days of Alta Dena, their cows were confined in a CAFO like operation. They though that by very very careful cleaning of the cows udders that they could avoid pathogens.
They did an excellent job of this …most of the time. But sometimes Salmonella would cross from the environment into the raw milk at milking. They fed lots of grain and the cows got….zero pasture. Zero….nada.
That is the challenge with a CAFO system. The evironmental conditions predispose to pathogen creation and growth. That is one of the reasons that OPDC has not seen pathogens in their milk or environmental studies. The number of pathogens found in the milk stands at zero. Environmental pathogens are also at zero in the creamery systems.
Alta Dena was beloved by thousands of people for fifty years….yet the battle with the media and the powers in charge at CDFA won the fight because of the recurrent pathogen theme…although no one was dying as a result. It was just to much bad press over and over again. This is one of the reasons that the Stueves have not jumped back into the raw milk fray….they still feel the sting and they remember it well.
I do not believe it is essential to be perfect….nothing is on earth. Especially food.
We must embrace natural food systems that are fundamentally correct and do not naturally support pathogens. We must embrace technologies that double check on mother nature to assure that no bad bugs are present….we must train our consumers that the only sustainable approach to health is prevention and a strong immune system is the heart of preventing disease. Sterile foods are healths arch enemy as are antibiotics and preservatives.
In CA we have reached a tipping point. The cat is out of the bag and people are buying raw milk and getting healthy.
The FDA’s lies and toxic drug approvals are so over the top and so toxic that even the doctors will not prescribe them.
Dr. Donald Fields ( pediatrician at VCH and professor of medicine at UCSF ) sent another one of his 2 year old patients to the OPDC yesterday with a note to get raw milk right away.
What can I say…..is it safe to be toxically poisoned by an FDA drug that does not work to heal…or just drink tested safe raw milk?
Lykke….your attacks on Sally are an attack on all of us….why don’t you try using a real name and stop being a coward. Talk is cheap. Sally stands with moms and kids arround the world in defense of rights and whole nutrttion. Something that you can not appreciate.
Sally is a hero and untold numbers of children strive because of her work.
Mark McAfee
I agree with you about naming of the dairy. It is a tragic situation. I wasn’t originally even going to write about it till the Marler blog posted an item not only naming the dairy, but encouraging readers to view the photos. I still could have not mentioned the name here, but decided that anyone who wanted to know could simply click on the link to the Marler blog. My main point was to illustrate how such incidents are used for political purposes.
David
That was not a personal attack on Sally- she presented a point of view and I presented a different point of view. I respect her as a person, but disagree with the comments she made in her post.
Mark, speaking of double standards, anonymous bloggers here like hugh betcha, miguel, and milk farmer have made numerous personal attacks against me and cp and others, yet you do not ask them to use a real name. Why?.