Sometimes when I read major media financial publications, I think I’m reading something from the U.S. Centers of Disease Control or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. I especially get this feeling when one or another provide commentary on investing in precious metals.
The current issue of Forbes is a case in point. One of its professional investor columnists writes, “Gold is supposed to be an anchor of stability in uneasy times. Currencies can collapse, stock markets can crash, bonds can default, but that yellow stuff is there forever. And so you are expected to put some portion of your retirement assets…in gold. I am going to try to talk you out of this…I think the best way to contend with these uncertainties over a quarter of a century is with a well-diversified portfolio of cheap index funds…Skip the precious-metals allocation.”
In other words, having forsaken the “index funds” for something like gold would have been dangerous, highly risky, in the view of this “professional.” No matter that a $10,000 investment in gold in the year 2000 would have increased to $50,000 today, while the same $10,000 invested in a fund mimicking the Dow Jones Industrial Average would still be worth about $10,000 (in dollars that are depreciating practically before our eyes).
Ten-year trend in gold prices, 2000-2010Sound familiar? Sort of like the “professionals” who tell us that consuming unpasteurized dairy is so terribly risky, when the government’s own data actually tell us it isn’t particularly risky. In both arenas, the professionals hollering fear and danger so vastly outnumber those preaching calm and reason that most of the public accepts the conventional wisdom as gospel.
I got to thinking about the comparison between investing and eating a few days ago, when I read that Ohio State University is planning a study about why people drink raw milk. It is looking for 60 raw milk drinkers (as well as 60 pasteurized milk drinkers) to answer questions, fill out some forms, and provide samples of the milk they drink, to be examined for fat content. One of the scientists quoted in the Ohio State press release about the study states, “We truly do not know very much about how people make the choice to drink raw or pasteurized milk — there’s just nothing in the literature,” How about that, there’s nothing in the literature. Maybe because the scientists have been so busy trying to scare people from drinking raw milk.
I’m certainly open to the public health community and the government wanting to learn more about why increasing numbers of people are drinking raw milk, and maybe, radical thought, what the nutritional benefits of raw milk might be. Don Neeper, an Ohio raw-milk activist who comments here, wrote me that he has been told by one of the scientists at Ohio State that the team is “committed to running an impartial study.”
That would be quite something in itself, since the study’s “principal investigator”, Jeffrey LeJeune, is a professor who last year published an article about the dangers of raw milk consumption in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled, “Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat”.
It concluded: “Given that milk is derived from animals, it inherently carries the risk of being contaminated with pathogens from its source (cattle, goats, sheep, and the farm environment). The key factor in the prevention of milkborne disease is consumer avoidance of raw milk consumption. In an effort to protect human health, a number of organizations have published guidelines and statements concerning milk pasteurization. The American Medical Association (policy H-150.980) [67] clearly asserts that milk sold for human consumption should be pasteurized. Likewise, the American Veterinary Medical Association asserts that only pasteurized milk and milk products should be sold for human consumption [68]. Thus, physicians, veterinarians, and dairy farmers who promote, or even condone, the human consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products may be at risk for subsequent legal action.” Yes, the old “Say-something-good-about-raw-milk-and-I’ll-sue-you routine.” I thought you had to be a lawyer to use that trick.
Neeper is inclined to cooperate with the study, and that makes sense (though I imagine the scientists could find out pretty quickly why raw milk drinkers do what they do, and save a bunch of dough, by attending a local Weston A. Price chapter meeting). The whole thing has something of the flavor of a British anthropologist heading out to study the indigenous population in one of the empire’s colonies 100 years ago–hold my nose and try to figure out what these uncivilized wretches are like so I can write my paper.
I can’t imagine someone like LeJeune could come up with more negatives about raw milk than he has already, except maybe to conclude that drinkers are clinically deranged. More likely, he’ll be like the professional investors who continue to disparage investing in gold–he won’t let something so mundane as the facts interfere with his view of the world.
***
Maybe the discussion on outsourcing following my previous post didn’t result in the butter sticker plan Amanda Rose liked being implemented by Organic Pastures Dairy Co., but it certainly was civil and substantive. Perhaps an acknowledgment by all concerned, including me, that outsourcing for providers of premium nutrient-dense foods is an important matter. Consumers need to get as close to their food as possible. Suppliers need to be especially careful, and transparent. Sure, Lykke and Amanda may have different perspectives, but the conversation with Mark McAfee was amazingly substantive, and he was as responsive and forthcoming as any company president could be.
I’ll add that I agree with Lykke that the Weston A. Price Foundation would do well to revise its account of the 2006 illnesses blamed on Organic Pastures. The WAPF account seems to blame spinach and antibiotics, when it says a recall of OPDC milk “occurred during the midst of the spinach contamination scare and seemed to be aimed at deflecting attention from the huge problems of E.coli O157:H7 contamination in produce. The state claimed that five raw milk-drinking children became ill, two of whom were hospitalized, given antibiotics and almost died. (The other three received no antibiotics and recovered quickly.)”
***
On the political front, there’s something interesting happening in Iowa. One candidate for secretary of agriculture is actually talking about busting agri-business monopolies and using local food production to create jobs. He’s Francis Thicke, and he’s trying to raise gain national financial support to win an upset victory against a Big Ag candidate in a serious agricultural state.
He tells me in an email, “I am trailing the incumbent narrowly (within the margin of statistical error). The very good news is that when respondents were given basic facts about the incumbent’s and my positions on issues, I passed him by a large margin.”
We need more people like Thicke running for office.
***
I’m frequently asked by readers of this blog whether there is a way to be alerted by email when a new post goes up, or a new comment is entered following a particular post. It turns out there is. It’s not super simple to get going, but it’s not terribly complicated, either, and I’m told by a few readers that it does work. Take a look at this FAQ for the specifics.
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/economics/perceptions-of-raw-milks-risks-and-benefits-research-brief-83/
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/rb83a.pdf
Raw Milk is liquid Gold for those that appreciate a healthy immune system. An old farmer friend of mine once said….health before wealth and you will have both.
Amanda and Lykke…please see OPDC website for our FAQ statements and explainations about our Source Stickering program. It is fully developed now….but it will be used. We have elected to purchase 55 organic cows in northern CA and that will allow us to avoid the entire issue.
Also…we invite all of you to visit the Girls Scout portal at OPDC. Now it is Raw Milk and Cookies time. Now it is Girls Scouts dunken some of that sin in a whole lot of our heaven.
Mark
What a fantastic way for raw-milk opponents to find out how raw milk is supplied and obtain milk sources or at least be able to figure out where they might be, as well as a golden opportunity to test all the various samples, which almost certainly won't have been handled ideally, for bacteria AND they'll already know who that supplier is (if a participant was ignorant enough and gave it to them) or probably figure out where or who the supplier might be; and then can come down like an investigatory ton of bricks if they feel the samples were contaminated… even if there are no illnesses.
Unless, of course, all participants were guaranteed completely anonymity and were not required to give their addresses or addresses of suppliers.
Seems like a potential witch-hunt in the making to me.
What is so difficult for people to understand? Some like raw dairy, some like fast foods, it is a choice and why is it so important for the govt to rule what one consumes? As said many times, raw milk is not going away, the continued ban and scare tactics will only push it underground thus causing a true contamination and increase health risk. The govt is not working with farmers or consumers to make our food safer. Sterilization and chemically adulterated foods are not the answer, they will only cause more ill-health, which will make more $$ for the pharmcuticals.
Miguel posted this link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/1/
Snippet: "a biostatistician named Georgia Salanti,.. and a few colleagues … asked this question: were drug companies manipulating published research to make their drugs look good? …….Maybe sometimes its the questions that are biased, not the answers,
How would such a study be used? Why the focus on "reasons" for drinking raw milk? Nah, don't think so.
I have to admit we have two things in common: impulsiveness and lack of a filter sometimes, lol. In retrospect, I probably should not have posted here again – too busy to jump back on the merry-go-round, and the CIA stopped paying me to post here, thus any comments are mine and mine only. Oops, that CIA rumor was never true – how on earth did that rumor get started anyway 🙂
Seriously, thanks for the FAQ on the outsourcing. Putting it in writing and being open shows a commitment toward responsibility, which a number of industries could benefit from. You are not the only one that should stick on a sticker with disclosures. Maybe you'll start a positive trend.
My point with jumping back on this blog related more to the past, and perhaps putting the past behind all of us. David wrote: "I'll add that I agree with Lykke that the Weston A. Price Foundation would do well to revise its account of the 2006 illnesses blamed on Organic Pastures." There is enough water under the bridge, why leave this misinformation on the web when it constantly refuels (and revisits) the 2006 crisis – that can't be good for business…I'd say the same about Dee Creek, but believe they are no longer in the raw milk business.
There was a similar study in Wisconsin and California and those were worthless.
The OSU planned study is a joke. Here is a statement given to Don Neeper earlier today by the research assistant.
Hello Mr. Neeper,
I am a graduate student at Ohio State working on my thesis involving the raw milk study you inquired about. Dr. Medeiros forwarded your email along to me since I am in charge of coordinating the participants in the study so hopefully I can answer all of your questions.
In general our study will consist of a focus group, survey, 4 day food record, and a milk sample. The focus group will consist of either pasteurized milk drinkers or raw milk drinkers. This will even further be broken down based on whether you live on a dairy farm or not. We want there to be free and open conversation among all focus group participants, so we will keep the milk groups separated so everyone will feel comfortable. The survey, food record and test tubes will be sent home with participants after the focus group and the individuals will be instructed to select an appointment time for the health assessment the following week. During the appointment time the health assessment will be conducted privately as well as reviewing the food record for completeness. In total we expect each day to take about 1 to 2 hours.
To specifically address your questions:
1. We will be freezing the milk samples shortly after receiving them at -30 degrees. I will only be extracting fat from each sample and analyzing the fat content and composition of the milk samples (both raw and pasteurized). We are asking for a sample of milk that you drink as well as the milk as it is in the container. There also will be another test tube that will be collected and stored. Currently there are no plans for that sample's use and if anyone chooses to use it in the future, they must first get your consent to be able to do so. So if you choose to participate and provide us with a milk sample you are only giving us permission to examine the fat content and composition, nothing else.
2. The health assessment will include height, weight, waist circumference and something else called a sagittal abdominal diameter. We are looking primarily at BMI and central adiposity. There is a certain fat in milk that has been shown to have some affect on central adiposity so we wanted to see if there was any correlation between the amount in the milk and central adiposity. But there is nothing more invasive than simple measurements.
3. There are many comparisons to make from this study. The focus groups and most of the survey will compare thoughts, behaviors, motivations, barriers, and reasons related to milk choices. The food record will compare overall dietary intake of the individuals, looking specifically at fat, vitamin D and calcium intake. The milk sample will compare the specific fatty acid profile of the milk including the fat percentage. And the health assessment will allow us to compare BMI and central adiposity between groups. Many of these will then be compared against each other, like health assessment and fatty acid profile, or dietary intake and health assessment. We do ask demographic information on our survey, but our objective is not to compare education levels, income, etc. However, if these turn out to be statistically different, then it is publishable data. (I also agree that it appears to be a small sample size, but it is still large enough to show statistical differences if they exist. Also, this is the starting line for projects down the road that will be able to recruit more participants)
4. I am completely approaching this study with an open mind, as are my colleagues. As a scientist, I want to look strictly at what the data tells me without any prejudice or bias. I understand any concern you may have relating to our "agenda" but I promise you, we do not have any.
Another important point is if you feel uncomfortable with any questions or portions of the study you may withdraw at anytime. This study is completely voluntary; we will never force you to do something or answer a question that you do not wish to.
I hope that I answered all of your questions. Please let me know if you have any others and I will be happy to talk to you. If you decide to participate either send me a phone number to contact you with or call our other project coordinators Lydia Medeiros at (614)292-2699 or Janet Buffer at (614) 247-8388.
Thank you so much for your time and interest in our study!
Sincerely,
Alyssa Mark
Graduate Research Associate:
What a sad joke this study is– its embarassing for OSU– and to think these poor kids think they are actually doing something. California and Wisconsin has already done something similar– I read those reports and they are totally worthless.
—
In my article last year called Another Bogus Study: Unpasteurized Milk A Public Health Threat? http://wp.me/shmll-266, by the very same esteemed institution– OSU and their Ag Research group in Wooster, I stated this:
The propaganda piece also provides psychological diagnosis for those biased into thinking that raw milk has curative properties and methods to change these old-fashioned ideas.
The authors then show more of their arrogance by offering legal advice: physicians, veterinarians, and dairy farmers who promote, or even condone, the human consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products may be at risk for subsequent legal action.
——
I will most likely write my own article on this topic– but your readers will need to fully register with our "short form" for the gateways to the Alliance for Raw Milk Internationale (ARMi), its ARMi Posts blog and the Journal . . . at http://eepurl.com/_I7E you will see there is a section for FDA, USDA, EPA and Health and their state franchises.
I may post an article on the topic of this Study– funded by the government/corporate/academia partnership– frantic to protect our health– if I have time- during my research of the use of real food such as Fresh Milk and other natural treatments in improving/healing autism and other neurological disorders such as vaccine induced disease as they try to stop it . . . during my Leave from the Health Department.
Kaylegian KE, Moag R, Galton DM, Boor KJ. Raw milk consumption beliefs and practices among New York state dairy producers. Food Protection Trends. 2008; 28: 184-191. (I couldn't find an online link to the full NY article, but you could probably get it from the authors). There is a summary on the USDA website:
http://tinyurl.com/22pgsam
Knowledge and attitudes towards food safety among Canadian dairy producers
http://tinyurl.com/289e8r5
2009 Raw Milk Consumer Survey (powerpoint)
http://tinyurl.com/2a4gcn6
The ice crystals created by freezing milk puncture the butterfat membranes, exposing them to the natural lipases (lipid degrading enzymes) present in the serum phase of raw milk. (Most lipases are destroyed by pasteurization). The natural lipases in raw milk can then attack the previously unavailable butterfat globules (which were protected by their membrane prior to freezing) and cause the breakdown of butterfat into free-fatty acids.
I would ask both the producers and consumers if they believe that soil health contributes to the safety and nutrient content of the milk,how do you measure soil health,does the cow's health contribute to the safety and quality(nutrient content) of the milk,Does the cow's diet affect the quality and content(diversity of fatty acids)of the milk,How does stress on the cow affect the milk quality.Do they believe that we are what we eat? Is the cow what it eats? are the plants in the pasture a reflection of the health of the soil?How can we find and identify an example of a system of milk production that can serve as an example for us to work towards?
An even bigger question I have for those doing these studies and those who would like to regulate the availability of raw milk:If a 5000 year old culture like that in the following videos existed today in North America,should it be allowed to continue to exist?
http://current.com/groups/on-current-tv/88817535_milk-meat-blood.htm
Just as an aside,I wonder how their BMI would compare to most people in North America who drink 1% pasteurized milk?
Something that keeps coming up in these studies is the anti-Listeria compounds produced by these enterococcus, and their positive effects on flavor development of cheese:
http://www.scitopics.com/Metabolic_activities_of_enterococci_in_cheese.html
"Literature data prove that enterococci possess biochemical properties able to contribute to the development of technological and sensory properties of dairy products, especially of ripened cheese. However, it ought to be considered that enterococci can play a dual role in food safety. In fact, they may be used as protective cultures, being able to produce enterocins with activity against several pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium spp., which can be found in cheese products (Giraffa 2003). Moreover, some of these enterocins have been proved to be active against some Gram negative bacteria, which is quite unusual for bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria (Khan et al., 2010). Recent studies demonstrate that during milk fermentation, some enterococci can produce peptides with Angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory activity (Muguerza et al., 2006; Quirs et al., 2007); this feature is receiving special attention because of the key role of ACE in regulating the blood pressure."
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/75/13/4273.pdf
"Enterococcus faecalis WHE 96, a strain isolated from soft cheese based on its anti-Listeria activity… Enterococcal bacteriocins, often termed enterocins, have been widely investigated, mainly because they are active against gram-positive food-borne pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus cereus."
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf990277m
"Cheddar cheese has previously been shown to be an effective vehicle for delivery of viable cells of a probiotic Enterococcus faecium strain to the gastrointestinal tract…. repeated comments by the commercial grader consistently described the cheeses containing PR88 [enterococcus] as more advanced than the control' and as having better flavor'. These findings indicate that the presence of the PR88 adjunct strain in Cheddar cheese at levels of ?108 cfu/g may positively influence Cheddar flavor."
All here will now need to fully register with our "short form" for the gateways to the Alliance for Raw Milk Internationale (ARMi), its ARMi Posts blog and the Journal . . . at http://eepurl.com/_I7E you will see there is a section for FDA, USDA, EPA and Health and their state franchises. If you try and subscribe, you will need to register.
I've already pointed out to the student the problem with freezing raw milk.
Which states allow raw milk to be sold in stores (not directly from farms, but in an honest-to-goodness grocery store)? Is it still legal in CA?
Thank you.
If I am not mistaken…..last time I checked on this the following states allow the retail sale of state inspected raw milk ( some with more limitations than others ):
California ( 400 stores with a range of organic raw products ), Arizona ( very limited ), Washington State, Pennsylvania, Maine, Conneticut, South Carolina ( very limited and only raw milk ) and in Utah on a very limited basis and only if the farmer owns the store.
Anyone…please correct me if I missed a state. http://www.realmilk.com has a comprehensive review of this subject state by state.
Mark
I'd caution you to not assume that just because the graduate student handling much of the study sounds reasonable and because it's a Ph.D. thesis, the results won't be published in a major scientific journal. The research is being funded by both the university and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the principal investigator (and certainly one of the authors in any scientific journal) is Prof. LeJeune, whose position on raw milk couldn't be clearer. The fact that you, Bill Anderson, and others knowledgeable about the benefits of raw milk may be participating is encouraging news. Let's hope you can truly teach.
David
My source for that information on freezing was French master cheesemaker Ivan Larcher.
Sheep's milk is the one exception to this rule, because sheep's milk lacks indigenous lipase enzymes, and so can be frozen with fewer adverse effects on the properties of the milk. (It is still less than ideal to freeze sheep's milk… all milk is at its best when it is fresh and uncooled, still at body temperature of the dairy animal)
However, in goat and cow milk, the principle is applicable to more than just freezing. I have learned this from a great variety of sources… very experienced people in the dairy industry.
Anything which disrupts or punctures the butterfat membrane will expose the butterfat to the lipases (lipid degrading enzymes) contained within the serum (water phase) of raw cow and goat milk.
Pumping, agitation, violent handling of the milk (such as milk hitting the wall of a bulk tank at high velocities out of the milk pipeline), as well as high somatic cell counts, all tend to increase the Acid Degree Value (ADV) of milk.
ADV is a labratory measure of rancidity in the butterfat. However, disrupted fat membranes are easily identified by a well-trained cheesemaker, even before they turn rancid. They form a fine "mist" of fat globules which appear on top of the milk in the vat, and are lost to the whey when the cheese is made.
Also, a trained judge of dairy products can easily detect rancid butterfat by taste and aroma. This flavor is considered desirable in some varieties of industrially produced cheese — asiago, romano, provolone, feta, and certain types of blue cheese. For most mass-produced cheese, the lipase enzymes are added to the milk after it has been pasteurized. There are even some raw milk blue cheeses in which a portion of the milk is intentionally homogenized to disrupt the butterfat globules, exposing them to the natural lipases in the raw milk, in order to promote lipolytic rancidity.
However, for a traditional raw milk cheese such as genuine French Roquefort, the natural lipolytic reactions occurs by the action of the blue molds indigenous to the natural caves in which the cheeses are aged, and so the free fatty acids created are a more subtle, profound, and complex flavor than the industrially produced blue cheeses.
http://www.das.psu.edu/research-extension/dairy/pdf/milkflavor.pdf
RANCID FLAVOR
Bacterial degradation results from bacteria that get into the milk upon contact with improperly washed or sanitized equipment, from external contamination, and is made worse by improper cooling. Infection of cows should not be considered as a source of high bacteria counts until all other causes have been eliminated.
Chemical defects can occur both before and after milking. The cowy or ketone flavor is the result of the animal suffering from ketosis. A foreign flavor can be caused by medications, a reaction to pesticides, disinfectants, or any number of contaminants. Rancidity and oxidation result from the degradation of milkfat.
A soapy-bitter taste is identifiable with rancidity. There appears to be a seasonal affect with the months between July and September having the highest occurrences. Rancidity is caused by a chemical development, which continues until the milk is pasteurized. It involves lipase and other enzymes, which react with the milkfat to form free fatty acids. The key to prevention is to have intact membranes around milkfat globules. Causes of rancid flavor are those things that result in weakened or broken milkfat globule membranes.
Some farm related causes include:
1. Lack of adequate protein in the diet.
2. Not feeding enough total energy for the level of milk produced.
3. Milking cows longer than 305 days.
4. Added stress when milking cows more than two times per day.
5. Air leaks in pipeline milkers.
6. Flooding of pipelines and receiver jars.
7. Partial or less than every other day collection of milk from farms.
8. Freezing in the bulk tank.
9. Over agitation in the bulk tank.
Some non-farm related causes include:
1. Holding raw milk in processing plants more than 48 hours after collection.
2. Failure to empty and wash raw milk storage tanks every processing day.
3. Air leaks in pipes.
4. Running pumps in a starved condition.
5. Homogenization prior to pasteurization.
http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/foodsci/extension/upload/mqipvsl-tests.doc
Acid Degree Value (ADV) is an indicator of the potential for rancid flavor in milk. It is an estimate of the level of free fatty acids (FFA), which occur as the result of the enzymatic breakdown (lipase) of butterfat. High levels of certain FFAs result in a rancid flavor in milk. ADVs of greater than 1.0 might be perceived as rancid. As the ADV exceeds 1.4, the flavor criticism may range from "lacks freshness" to "rancid/unclean" depending on the individual tasting the milk. Most causes of high ADVs occur on the farm through excessive agitation of the milk. Pasteurization inactivates most of the natural lipase in milk, thus minimizing the development of rancidity, though ADVs may rise slowly during storage. Mixing pasteurized homogenized milk with raw milk will cause rancidity. ADVs may also increase as the SPC increases to spoilage levels.
You are too negative toward Don, IMHO. I have no involvement in the Ohio study, but will welcome the data. The more people that participate in these surveys (including the one Augie is doing), the more people who ask questions and engage with the researchers…the less chance for bias when everything is analyzed as a whole.
Thank you for your answer — that's very helpful. I also appreciate the reference to the realmilk.com website.
-Sundari
I didn't take David's comment as being negative at all, but as simply a very wise and reasonable suggestion to tread carefully and watch our backs. 🙂
Although one correction is that Alyssa Mark is working on her Master's thesis, not a Ph.D. thesis. She explained that she only has a limited timeframe in which to complete her study, and that she could have expanded the scope and timeline if she were a doctoral student.
I find the Ohio study very dubious . . . . these researchers should know that the only "raw fluid milk" that can be frozen and retain "most" of the original properties is from sheep.
This study is so flawed I don't know where to start . . . .
.Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/10/19/criminalizing-nature-s-most-perfect-food