Photo by Jennifer SharpeNearly before the laughs about Rawesome Food Club generated by The Colbert Report last week died out, an internal dispute broke out at Rawesome over the quality and sourcing of some of its food.
The quality-sourcing issues aren’t of the sort that would bother regulators, or nearly all the rest of the people in this country, but they are very near and dear to the hearts of Rawesome members. The issues were first raised publicly by Aajonus Vonderplanitz, one of Rawesome’s founders, in an email to members last week, in which he claimed chickens and eggs being supplied from one of its contracted producers weren’t organic, or free of soy and GMO feed as required. He said he had solid evidence that the “so-called pastured organic non-soy and non-GMO-fed chicken and eggs…are bought from standard commercial egg and meat suppliers that were not organic and not soy-free.”
I hesitated last week to say too much about the charges before hearing from those he was accusing. Since Vonderplanitz made his charges, two of the individuals he targeted–James Stewart, a co-founder of Rawesome, and Sharon Palmer, the farmer supplying the eggs and chickens–have responded.
In his own email, James Stewart labeled the charges “inaccurate and outlandish. I have always been transparent and shared with everyone ‘exactly what I know’ about the food represented in our club. If a food producer has lied, the minute those suspect items were proven to be false, they were removed from our club.”
Sharon Palmer issued a statement saying, “Our chickens (which are 100% ours) really are raised outdoors where they can eat the food they were born to eat. They really don’t get growth-enhancing feed additives, hormones, soy. They are humanely processed at a local poultry processor, air-chilled, packaged, and brought fresh to market. Same with our laying hens – clean, healthy, truly free-range.”
It’s impossible for an outsider like me to take a position on this situation because I don’t know the full story. I do know that all the people involved have certainly seemed committed to providing top-quality food to Rawesome members. Indeed, all have risked their own safety and property by resisting raids and government efforts to shut them down.
As painful as the current process is–already, it seems, Rawesome members are dividing into different camps on the quality-outsourcing issues–it could prove useful on a couple of fronts, externally and internally
* To the outside world, it suggests more clearly than any policy statement or written contract that private food groups aren’t just a sham–commercial retailers or wholesalers in the guise of private food clubs–as many regulators would like to have us believe. They are designed to be member driven, and in this situation, that premise is being put to the test.
We know what happens when corporate retailers supposedly committed to providing ongoing supplies of nutrient-dense foods decide to change how they do business. Earlier this year, Whole Foods from one day to the next stopped carrying raw milk. There was a huge outcry from customers. Too bad, guys. Take a hike. End of story. Same thing when various Whole Foods stores label as “locally produced” produce from California and Canada, as they regularly do. You can complain all you want, but in the end nameless, faceless corporate bigwigs do as they please.
* On the negative side, it seems as if private food clubs need to provide more effective mechanisms for ensuring transparency than they do now. Part of the reason individuals join private food clubs is to gain access to the best sources of nutrient-dense foods, ideally locally based. If Rawesome had a food sourcing committee, say, that audited suppliers on a regular basis, there would be little question about whether outsourcing was going on. As Mark McAfee suggests in a comment following my previous post, auditing months or years after the fact is a tedious and time-consuming task, and the end result can’t be guaranteed. When most key food-contracting decisions are left in the hands of one or two individuals, it’s difficult for those individuals to keep tabs of everything so as to be able to provide later documentation.
There’s been a running discussion on this blog over a couple years–continuing with comments following the previous post–about whether some of the dairy production from Organic Pastures Dairy Co. may be outsourced. Certainly Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures has been many times more responsive than any Whole Foods or other corporate food producer. Perhaps the labeling idea Amanda Rose has put forth will be adopted, but Organic Pastures is still a private company that makes its own decisions in private.
So, as difficult as the Rawesome situation might be to watch for those of us who value what it does, and how steadfastly it has stood up to the government-industrial food crackdown, the unfolding process may well serve as a useful case example on behalf of the need for greater transparency as well as the reality of self governance in the emerging world of private food delivery. ?
***
Each year, it seems to get more difficult to find untreated apple cider. It took me three weeks and poking around at farmers markets in three states (Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont), but finally I was able to locate unprocessed apple cider. I made my find at the same Vermont farmers market as last year. The seller told me he’s able to sell from his farm and at farmers markets, but no food distributor will touch his apple cider.
And this year, add eggs to the list of difficult-to-find items…at least for me. While searching for cider, I also searched for small-farm eggs, and came up empty-handed at the Maine and Vermont markets (told they had sold out shortly after the markets opened), while scoring in Massachusetts. But the eggs I got were being sold by a woman who wasn’t a farmer, and couldn’t give me a good sense of exactly where they came from, so I only bought them reluctantly. I have to think the recent illness outbreaks from factory eggs out of Iowa have made more people eager to buy real eggs from real farms. A vision of the future?
Traditional "cider" refers to the fermented aged prorudct, or what Americans call "hard cider."
However, most American commercial "hard ciders" are stabalized with sulfites or pastuerized, and are then back-sweetened with sugar and artificial flavors, and sometimes blended with distilled spirits. They are little more than apple-flavored wine coolers.
Traditional cider is generally very dry (though there are a few exceptions to this rule) because all of the sugars are consumed by yeasts and bacteria as the cider ages.
Traditional cider is also made with apple varieties (or blends of varieties) that are intended for cider making rather than eating (much American "apple cider" is from eating varieties which are bred for sugar content, visual appeal of the fruit, and ease of eating). In traditional cider, the balance of acids, tanins, aromatic compounds, and sugars are all important considerations.
It should also be noted that (like making cheese with raw milk) the process of fermenting and aging cider has a strong selective effect against pathogens and parasites which may have contaminated the freshly pressed juice. The principle of competative exclusion is at work.
Nearly all traditional apple cider is unpastuerized, and stored in wooden barrels (which breath) rather than aged in innert stainless steal tanks. Just as all traditional raw milk cheese is aged in a cellar or cave like enviroment and must be allowed to breath.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Turn your duty to be vigilant and your choices over to a few people, add 200 years and we have what we have.
A populace always looking to offset costs, things made easy for them and all are shocked when those they trusted cut corners.
Couple that with the inability of people even producers to know, let alone understand what constitutes quality food and we see this.
Consumers who do not have a clue, and believe what someone has told them is good, rant when someone else points out this may not be what you think it is and we all go to our familair corners.
If you do not want certain things in your food grow it yourself, if that is not possible search out those who do and visit often, and do not complain about what it costs to do what "you" think is best.
To ask for the moon and ask for it cheap and rely on someone else to get it for you, beggars cannot be choosers.
Do we not have enough history as a species to understand this is what you get when asking someone else to take responsiblity for your health, well being and bottom line?
Drive to your farms, while you can.
Learn all you can so when you cannot drive you can eat, learn what is possible given the current situation and ask how to help move things forward for the betterment of all involved.
That is cooperation, even verging on reparation for our ancestors depletion of our soils we depend on, and don't be suprised if that reparation costs a little more to get what you think you can buy now.
Chances are you cannot, and please realize that most of the local food movement is about what is not in the food rather than what currently is.
To ask for your cake and eat it too is to say the least a bit premature.
Farmer Tim
I've spoke to David about this privately as I live in Los Angeles, work at the farmer's market and am in the thick of these events. It's funny as a lot of people from both camps speak to me as if I am on their side. I am usually one of the first to hear the rumors and how many speak out of spite based on hearsay. I call it farmer/procurer/nutritionist as guru. They've got their followers, preach purity and whatever comes out of their mouths are held as gospel.
The participating work consumers can do can be as simple as going to the farmer's market in the rain, knowing that these farmers havebeen out in the rain the night before picking their crops, crops that will perish in a couple of days if they are not bought. It takes EVERYBODY to make it work, rain or shine. I sent a message to Mark McAfee saying that my experince at the markets show me that everyone want to be involved, everyone want to make it work which is why transparency is so important. The customer is kept in the loop. They learn dynamics of whole processes/systems and are made aware of their involvment in this system.
Thank you for that….your soul is at the very basis of the FM movement. What you do for food activism is essential and important. Thank x 100…
Amanda…
I think we have the makings of a reall good idea. We will be placing a new FAQ at our website soon that explains fully Class 4 products and raw dairy. Few people outside of CDFA and OPDC managers understand the huge differences between Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 dairy products. This will all be discussed.
If OPDC should purchase any farm direct cooperating outside organic dairy raw milk to make raw butter, OPDC will place a sticker on the label of that OPDC product to explain this to the consumer and direct the consumer to the FAQ for more information. This is transparent and I agree that it is essential to the nature of this discussion and the true relationship between food, integrity and farmer and the consumer.
As much as a I hate to compliment Amanda on this…here it is…Thank you Amanda for a very good idea. The "Source Stickering" part was my idea…but the idea of identifying the exact source of all raw dairy products was all Amanda.
I think we will have a better product as a result…I also think that badly needed credit will go to unknown and very hardworking organic dairy farmers that get-no-love at all and need and deserve it badly. OPDC helps other grass fed farmers to feed people when OPDC just does not have enough cream to make Class 4 butter….we would need 200 more cows to make all the butter requested at this time….
OPDC has no intention of placing 200 more cows at OPDC. Class 4 raw butter is a great way for other organic dairymen to become ( at least at times ) a part of the success at OPDC.
Mark
Great idea to post the information on butter. There is so much variation from state-to-state with raw dairy regulations, it gets confusing. The more information coming directly from the farmers the better! Could you also post information about colostrum – how it's regulated, sourced, and processed (e.g., is it combined with raw milk and how do you determine the ratio of colostrum:raw milk?). How much commercial colostrum for human consumption is available in the US, or is it mostly a California product? I haven't seen mention of raw colostrum except in California.
Thanks!
MW
There's enough praise to go around for everybody.
Mark, in this light, would it be feasible to list the farms you purchase from on the website?
G.K. Chesterton wrote an essay on Cheese.
It can be found online here:
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/cheese.html
Here's to real food.
I found Rawsome in 5/2009, took one glance at that statement and signed it on the spot, with relish. And dont regret it. I was not and am not looking for a guru. I thirst for honesty and integrity. Ive heard though Sally Fallon what (some of ) Mary Enigs testimony is on nutrition. There are many false balances [trans fats labeling e.g.] and those that knowingly erect them whether in the arenas of food, law or elsewhere are beneath contempt. Are they not?
Perhaps some people trip over their own shadows but if because of that the environment for everybody must be made safe will the result not be such an increase in decrepitude that all will trip over their own shadows?
I expect to learn what I can from anyone but my search for someone who is perfect in my eyes was shelved years ago. I try not to turn a deaf ear to anyone. I will judge and evaluate what I hear. I will ask questions. I will look at results.
David, thank you for this website.
Mark, thanks for your products.
Thanks to you all.
What good goals are fought for here.
Best regards,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Thanks for the link on cheese! Excellent!
"Both the good and the bad civilization cover us as with a canopy, and protect us from all that is outside. But a good civilization spreads over us freely like a tree, varying and yielding because it is alive. A bad civilization stands up and sticks out above us like an umbrella – artificial, mathematical in shape; not merely universal, but uniform. So it is with the contrast between the substances that vary and the substances that are the same wherever they penetrate."
"Safety matches, tinned foods, patent medicines are sent all over the world; but they are not produced all over the world. Therefore there is in them a mere dead identity, never that soft play of variation which exists in things produced everywhere out of the soil, in the milk of the kine, or the fruits of the orchard. You can get a whisky and soda at every outpost of the Empire: that is why so many Empire builders go mad. But you are not tasting or touching any environment, as in the cider of Devonshire or the grapes of the Rhine. You are not approaching Nature in one of her myriad tints of mood, as in the holy act of eating cheese."
And imagine… all that cheese consumed by thousands and without pasteurizing!
OPDC butter is typically abundant in the market with the exception of early this year when the cow rescue was going on. It does go in fits and spurts but it really hasn't been lacking in our area most of the year. I know personally that large quantities were outsourced in the fall of 2007 and the market was full of butter then. Raw milk has grown as a movement, though I am sure with budget issues, people are buying less. I would think we'd have at least the same butter demand as in 2007 when I expect just about all of the butter was sourced elsewhere. Unless we basically see stickers on pretty much all of the butter, we need a milk pool analysis.
In any case, the analysis would really put an end to all of this, but I am certainly willing to wait and see how the stickers are actually implemented. I assume the stickers will go on outsourced colostrum too, otherwise the presence of stickers on the butter would imply lack of outsourcing on the colostrum (which is also plentiful, the colostrum-lite line in any case, the real colostrum is limited). The colostrum is unregulated, so outsourcing is perfectly legal. Mark sourced the milk portion of the colostrum product in 2006 from a 10K cow confinement dairy.
Amanda
I will never know and no one will ever know if that colostrum did or did not play a roll in the 2006 crisis. However….it was not colostrum that was linked to any illnesses by CDFA.Yes one chocoleche consumer was questioned but they were never hospitalized and recovered quickly. No other cases were linked even remotely to any of our colostrum in 2006. In 2003, OPDC made a deal with UC Davis and CDFA and CA DHS to allow DHS dietary supplement raw fresh colostrum to be sold to the public. We were the first and only dairy in the USA to develop this protocol for retail approved raw colostrum. No other dairy in the USA ( that I am aware of at least ) sells retail approved tested raw colostrum in stores.
We no longer collect or purchase colostrum from other dairies. This is a thing of the ancient past. We have learned that colostrum is a special product and needs special chilling and handling. We instead collect only from our cows at OPDC and when it runs out it runs out….that is it.
Colostrum is not regulated or tested by CDFA because it is not a "lacteal secretion"…it is not milk. It is a "dietary supplement" that is loosely monitored by CA DHS. This is how we were able to make our QEPHOR ( equiv to Raw Milk Russian Kefir ) because it comes from cows that are late in their transition to whole milk but still are releasing some colostrums in their raw milk ( cows release colostrum for about 4-5 days after giving birth…the closer to the birth it is collected the higher the concentration).
These colostrum products have been hassle free and have caused literally no problems for any one in the 7 years we have been doing these products. It is awesome medicine for IBS, Asthma, ear infections and allergies…( John Sheehan and his FDA cronies must be having chest pain with that last sentence ).
Hope this helps….you will see some Source Stickers on OPDC raw butter arround CA next week if all goes as planned.
The new FAQ is going up this week if our webmaster can get it done.
Peace and healing….how about those Chilean miners….now that is awesome!!!!
Mark
Amanda, of course "Know Your Source" is important. I did not mention as on this site as I'd be preaching to the choir
Mark: My favorite part of your Vander Eyk story is that the heifers are on those pastures from January until April, during the growing season in Central California. The 2006 outbreak was in September, over four months after all of the heifers would have been moved back to confinement. The pastures aren't irrigated so they move the heifers back to the heifer ranch when the grass fizzles.
There are other problems with your story but most people are aware of the growing season here and will understand that factoid pretty easily.
Funny thing: Some Vander Eyk cowboys helped with the med-evac of my son last month. One goes to church with us.
I will check out those stickers next week. That's good progress.
Amanda
We are developing the Source Sticker program and FAQ answers and will have it ready…..however, it might not happen.
We just got 55 cows offered to us by an organic cow broker and they should arrive late next week. This is a better offer than buying raw milk from outside sources. So the Sticker deal will be explained and held in reserve but it may not happen.
Amanda….this was five years ago…honestly you probably know much more about Case Vanderyke than I do…you have made it a mission in your life. So I do not doubt that the story gets bigger. We were told that his colostrum came from first calf heifers that had been on range land. Thats what we were told. The quality of his colostrum was far better than other sources of colostrum that we had researched. We went all over looking for Colostrum and he offered the protocol that permitting us passing the testing at DHS better than anyone else. It was cleaner and faster chilled. Very high quality.
It is all a mute point now….we do not purchase outside colostrum from other organic farmers.
Mark
What a great group of people that do great work feeding the citizens of CA. They love raw milk and suggest it to everyone that presents with Asthma, IBS and immune depression etc…
I am proud to have them in our food chain.
Mark
Next time look east and see the brown foothills.
Call if you need a compass.
Amanda
Mark: Your super-leche colostrum*wink*colostrum product is primarily fluid milk. Are you saying you have not purchased fluid milk from another source for the milk portion of the product since 2006?
Again, if you sprinkle actual colostrum in it, I'm not interested in that component, I'm interested in the rest of it — the milk part. Very obviously it's not "Day 4-6 colostrum" or it wouldn't be so readily abundant in the marketplace. It must be part fluid milk
Steve Bemis posted this excellent commentary:
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/just-label-it-bemis.htm
Looking back at all of his Great Thoughts, #9 below comes to mind. Specifically, how does this relate to the additional information Mark presents about the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak among children linked to raw milk and raw colostrum in California? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5723a2.htm
Reading the new developments about this outbreak…
"Amanda you are right and I have never said you were not correct about pre 2006 colostrum purchases from Case Vanderyke organic dairy in Pixly. The colostrum that we got from him were from his pasture grazed first calf heifers ( that were not in Pixly but in the foot hills )that had just been delivered to his now de-certified CAFO organic dairy. This all stopped after the 2006 event….I will never know and no one will ever know if that colostrum did or did not play a roll in the 2006 crisis."
…it strikes me that the State was not given complete information during the outbreak investigation. Specifically, the State tested milking cows and heifers at OPDC, but was not aware the dairy was outsourcing and co-mingling colostrum products with fluid milk from another dairy.
Per the 11 Great Thoughts (#9), would everyone agree that in the future, there should be transparency about the sourcing of all the dairy products during an investigation?
9) An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous and neutral approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or warnings which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news/news-11-Great-Thoughts.html
Similarly, shouldn't the misinformation on WAPF's website about this outbreak be removed?
After reading the comments here the past few days, it seems most were in agreement that there should be transparency all the time, not just in the event of an investigation.
On the topic of unfounded warnings – not only should there be exoneration –
depending on the length of time and extent of damage to sales and reputation – there should also be compensation.
As a taxpayer, I would also like to see regulators held to a higher standard of personal accountability. People should be getting fired for some of the atrocious mishandling of cases we've seen.
To those who enjoyed the article Ingvar posted –
you might also like this book by Brad Kessler:
"Goat Song: A Seasonal Life, A Short History of Herding, and the Art of Making Cheese"
I will never again feel bored as I stand stirring my cheese curds – he elevated a potentially menial task to a new plane, for me.
Granted, he almost lost me during the graphic depictions of carnal goat love – which were dead on accurate – but it took me a few days to get out of the cloud of barnyard buck stench that he paints the reader into…. 🙂
An unbiased scientifically neutral approach is a pipe dream.
What purpose is there in having milk pool records?
Do health officials not have access to the milk pool records that Amanda continually seeks in order to settle the issue? If so due diligence would have demanded that they seek out those records.
Steve suggestion in the article http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/just-label-it-bemis.htm that, a parent's consent should be obtained before you feed her child raw milk, even if the child is a guest in your home and raw milk is what your kids drink all the time is from my perspective an unrealistic and impractical expectation.
I have ample experience living on the farm virtually all of my life (50 years). Friends and relatives would on an ongoing basis come to the farm and visit. Part of the routine when one got thirsty would be to run to the dairy and ladle out and drink raw milk from the cooler. The tradition continues to this day with my nine children.
Let me paint this picture for you. When children come to visit at the farm the routine is somewhat predictable. Off to the chicken coop they go to gather the eggs, then they play baseball or hit golf balls against the barn and if the balls happen to go over the barn they run out behind the barn sometimes having to retrieve their balls from the shit pile. The dog thinks he is a kid as well and runs around with them with a ball in his mouth. He too runs behind the barn and while doing so doesnt hesitate to gobble up a few mouthfuls of cow shit. On hot days we stuck our heads into the livestock watering trough then threw the dog in so he could cool down as well, or ran over to the neighbors farm and jumped into his pond behind the barn where the cattle and horses drank. Today the kids jump into a salt water treated swimming pool. I guess in some peoples minds that would be an improvement!
Ken Conrad
You have taken an inch of my information and tried to stretch it into a mile of I do not know what you call it….but it is not true and it is not correct or accurate.
OPDC only bought "pure colostrum" ( high concentration first day ) from Case Vanderyke and this stopped after the 2006 event. We never bought partial or light colostrum from Case.
We sell very little superlite colostrum every week. It is literally a superniche product. It is collected from cows that are more than 2 days and less than 6 days past calving. We do not add a little bit of colostrum back into raw milk and call that superlite….that is not legal. That is considered an act of milk adulteration.
We are changing our FAQ to reflect the "Source Stickers" protocol. I am just saying that at this time we have decided to buy more cows instead of buying outside organic milk to make raw butter. This makes the use of Source Stickers a mute point. We also value the point system at Cornucopia and this would preserve our perfect status.
Mark
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/1/
"The studies were biased, he says. Sometimes they were overtly biased. Sometimes it was difficult to see the bias, but it was there. Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain resultsand, lo and behold, they were getting them. We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact its easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously. At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded, says Ioannidis. There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.
"these problems are aside from ubiquitous measurement errors (for example, people habitually misreport their diets in studies), routine misanalysis (researchers rely on complex software capable of juggling results in ways they dont always understand), and the less common, but serious, problem of outright fraud (which has been revealed, in confidential surveys, to be much more widespread than scientists like to acknowledge)."
"The exciting links between genes and various diseases and traits that are relentlessly hyped in the press for heralding miraculous around-the-corner treatments for everything from colon cancer to schizophrenia have in the past proved so vulnerable to error and distortion, Ioannidis has found, that in some cases youd have done about as well by throwing darts at a chart of the genome."
". The ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly retest each others resultsexcept they dont. Only the most prominent findings are likely to be put to the test, because theres likely to be publication payoff in firming up the proof, or contradicting it. "
"We could solve much of the wrongness problem, Ioannidis says, if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right. Thats because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessaryas long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough. But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research thats dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that. "
Maybe sometimes its the questions [asked by researchers] that are biased, not the answers…
That says it. And it pertains not just to researchers, but physicians, diagnosticians, investigators, and just about everybody else. Prior belief is a potent force. It colors all our perceptions, and builds and supports paradigms that serve to reinforce the original bias. But true answers cannot be expected to emerge from dishonest questions.
What is the average Joe to do? First, understand that neither the size of an idea, nor the credentials of its promoters, nor the earnestness with which it's promoted, makes that idea true. Second, insist that the powerful stop insisting that they know it all. We should all become more comfortable with own observations, our own history, and even our own intuition. We should all have well-developed baloney barometers. And most important, we should have the freedom to make life decisions based on our beliefs.
Today we are not free to act in personal or corporate economy according to our beliefs. Rules and regulations, laws, policies, and taxes manipulate us at every turn. Often the restrictions are touted as justified by science. That is often baloney.
Our leaders spout endlessly about the need for free markets. Have they forgotten that what makes free markets is free men?
Or do they know it and ignore it?
http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2010/10/14/commodities/dairy/dairy28.txt
No doubt there are those with biases – On all sides. Your link is welcome, but does not sway me away from believing in those who do good unbiased work. Just because you have some bad players, doesn't mean everyone is bad (that comment ranges across the board including farmers, scientists…).
Your disdain of all use of DNA fingerprinting seems extreme. There are times it is very useful, and times it isn't in infectious disease work. Experienced, knowledgeable scientists know the difference. Loaded question, but from a human biology perspective, would you release all rapists convicted using DNA evidence because there are examples of bias in a very few cases?
MW
You are clearly showing your bias in your statements.I do have disdain for the term "matching DNA fingerprints" because it is a very biased way to say that we can't distinguish between two PFGE profiles.PFGE profiles are useful to eliminate some isolates from consideration.Rarely are enough tests run with enough differing enzymes to say that we have a high probability of closely related isolates.
If someone is convicted of rape based on DNA evidence alone,then there was not sufficient evidence to convict in the first place.People should not be in prison based on insufficient evidence .
what really blows my mind is how many people are now seeking these items. slowly, slowly, even the most sterile, germaphobic sorts are starting to hear that their food might need to contain living enzymes and even bacteria. i can't tell you how many times people approach with a comment like "i hear you drink raw milk. i'm terrified of it. convince me quickly why i need to drink it." to which i laugh and say no way. but the amazing thing is these people are already on their way to educating themselves, and usually the next conversation goes "i really need to try this raw milk thing, where do i start?" there is a shift. parents are tired of their children being sick and hyperactive, they no longer believe that it is just 'normal' or that there is nothing they can do, and people are starting to question the safety of our centralized food.