It’s gotten so we aren’t surprised any more when the regulators go after producers of raw milk with a vengeance not seen with other foods. We’ve seen case after case after case, in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, and California, among other places.

Oftentimes the suspicions are highly questionable (like with findings of listeria in raw milk in New York), since no one becomes ill. Even when the evidence is more convincing, like in the current case in Wisconsin involving the Zinniker Family Farm, the authorities are very aggressive, most recently ordering the dairy shut down.

So how do the authorities handle outbreaks of illness from pasteurized milk? Their answer, at least in Massachusetts, is, “What outbreaks?”

I recounted a case last month in which Massachusetts agriculture authorities issued a cease-and-desist order against a raw dairy, prohibiting it from handing out samples of raw milk at a farmers market (which they had been doing for three years, without incident).

It turns out the Massachusetts authorities didn’t stop there. State public health officials sent notices to local departments of public health whose towns have raw dairies, advising them to not allow the dairies to hand out samples of raw milk, presumably in connection with raw dairy days at many farms in recent days. The reasoning?

The state contends, in a letter written by the director of the Food Protection Program of the Massachusetts Office of Health and Human Services, that raw milk is unsafe, and pasteurized milk is super safe. “As you are probably aware, each year, there are numerous reports of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States associated with the consumption of raw milk. In contrast, only three outbreaks have been associated with pasteurized milk in the past 30 years.”

This is false information, however. I researched illnesses from pasteurized milk for my upcoming book (due out next month), The Raw Milk Revolution, and it turns out there have been a number of well-documented cases of serious and widespread illness from pasteurized milk.

For instance, in 1983, 14 of 49 Massachusetts residents who had contracted listeriosis from pasteurized milk died. The New England Journal of Medicine, in a 1985 writeup of the case, expressed open concern about the fallibilities of pasteurization: “The milk associated with disease came from a group of farms on which listeriosis in dairy cows was known to have occurred at the time of the outbreak,” said the article. “Multiple serotypes of L. monocytogenes were isolated from raw milk obtained from these farms after the outbreak. At the plant where the milk was processed, inspections revealed no evidence of improper pasteurization…These results support the hypothesis that human listeriosis can be a foodborne disease and raise questions about the ability of pasteurization to eradicate a large inoculum of L. monocytogenes from contaminated raw milk.” 

And then there was a case two years later in Illinois, which, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, led to 16,000 confirmed illnesses of salmonella infection—of 2% milk from a single dairy.  In point of fact, the toll was likely ten times or more than the 16,000 confirmed cases, reported the JAMA authors. “Two surveys to determine the number of persons who were actually affected yielded estimates of 168,791 and 197,581 persons, making this the largest outbreak of salmonellosis ever identified in the United States,” the article summarized. Further investigation showed that the same strain of salmonella had contaminated the plant for at least ten months “and repeatedly contaminated milk after pasteurization.” 

There was an even worse case in 1994 described in the New England Journal of Medicine—one in which 224,000 people around the country became ill from salmonella contained in Schwan’s ice cream. After much testing of the ice cream samples, the ice cream plant, and the tanker trailer trucks that transported the ice cream pre-mix, the investigators couldn’t be sure which part of the dairy concoction was at fault, though they leaned toward the egg component. “This nationwide outbreak of salmonellosis was most likely the result of contamination of pasteurized ice cream premix during transport in tanker trailers that had previously carried nonpasteurized liquid eggs containing S. enteritidis.”

There have been other equally shocking cases of illness in which pasteurized milk was a major factor in triggering illness. In May 2006, more than 1,600 prisoners in 11 California facilities around the state became ill with campylobacter (sometimes referred to as a C. jejuni infection). A study by California scientists, presented as an abstract at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in 2007, said the infection was traced to “post-pasteurization contamination of the milk” produced by the prison system’s own dairy, possibly from inappropriate manure management practices. As in so many other such cases, the actual source hasn’t been traced. An Associated Press story speculated that the milk was spoiled.

While all the sickened inmates in California recovered, that wasn’t the case in a 2007 Massachusetts outbreak of illness from pasteurized milk. Over the course of about six months, three elderly individuals died and a young mother-to-be lost her child in a miscarriage from the listeriosis they contracted from drinking pasteurized milk. Investigators eventually traced the listeria pathogen to flavorings added to the milk after pasteurization.

So now we’re up to five cases over the last 30 years, and we haven’t even begun exploring the 155 for pasteurized dairy products compiled the Center for Science and the Public Interest in the 16 years between 190 and 2006, compiled in the organization’s 2008 report (page 13). 

I guess I understand when these public health officials trade such “urban legends” among themselves. That’s their background and education. What I can’t abide is when these supposed guardians of our safety use bogus information to stir up fear among consumers and to infringe on the rights of law-abiding dairy owners trying to educate the public about the attractiveness of raw milk.

Just one other caveat on this story: the Massachusetts regulator says in her letter that she obtained her information about the plan to offer milk samples from the web site of the Northeast Organic Farming Association. Using web sites of food organizations and blogs to conduct their investigations is an increasingly favorite tactic of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with state agriculture agencies. The idea is to spread fear–make law-abiding citizens think twice before disseminating seemingly ordinary information about events.