Questions, Questions: Will WI Guv Sign Raw Milk Legislation? What Does FDA Want With PA Dairy Farmer? Stanford Studies Lactose Intolerance
Friday, April 23, 2010 at 01:51PM 
Wisconsin Gov. Jim DoyleWisconsin legislation that would allow Grade A dairy farmers to sell raw milk directly from the farm has now passed both houses of the legislature by significant margins.
The legislation has all kinds of weaknesses from the viewpoint of Wisconsin dairy producers. By being limited to Grade A dairy farmers, it leaves out many small dairy producers that aren't necessarily suppliers to processors. Moreover, it is time limited--would expire after next year. That means opponents will be pushing to find "problems" even before it gets fully implemented. And it will be implemented by the state's notorious Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP), which despises raw milk and raw milk producers.
Still and all, it is a start, and it is a start in a huge dairy state. It would enable a number of Grade A dairies that have been struggling under the iron fist of the DATCP to legally sell raw milk. Oftentimes. getting a legal foot in the door leads to bigger and better things down the road.
Gov. Jim Doyle will no doubt be pressured by dairy processors and public health types, not to mention his own DATCP, to veto the legislation. That's what happened to SB 201 in California, which would have rescinded a stringent bacterial-count standard, and had passed the legislature by even larger margins than the Wisconsin legislation; Gov. Schwarzenegger gave in to the pressure and vetoed the legislation in late 2008.
But a lot has happened since 2008. Raw milk is ever more popular, and proponents more politically active. The key will be to convince the governor that the legislation is important to key segments of voters. At least one newspaper report suggests he's hearing the growing cacophany. If you're for the legislation, give his office a call, 608-266-1212, and say it's about SB434, the raw milk legislation.
***
A Pennsylvania dairy appears to be the target of an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration into interstate shipments of raw milk.
Dan Allgyer, an Amish dairy farmer, had a visit Tuesday morning from two FDA agents, as well as federal marshalls and a state trooper. According to an account by Allgyer, the FDA agents presented a search warrant and said they had "credible evidence" Allgyer is involved in interstate commerce involving raw milk, which is a violation of federal law.
The farmer's account of the events of Tuesday morning are presented on the web site of the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA).
It's no secret that raw milk is pouring out of states that allow its sales--Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina--into East Coast cities like Washington, New York, and Boston, where it can't be sold via retail outlets. It may well be that, following its typical modus operandi, as in the Max Kane case, the FDA is targeting a single producer for enforcement...hoping to use that example to scare off other producers and thereby reduce the supply.
Afraid not, guys. This trend is too far along. There are too many consumers desperate for their raw milk to let the FDA enforcers stop the supply. Maybe the enforcers will slow things down for a while. But I guarantee, it will pick right up. Strong demand always creates its supply. Economics 101.
***
We may receive actual "scientific' evidence before long about the influence of raw milk on lactose intolerance. Stanford is conducting a presumably double-blind study to determine whether raw milk eases lactose intolerance, which is a problem for between 30 million and 50 million Americans.
If you live in the Palo Alto area, and have lactose intolerance, you may want to consider participating--you'll earn an easy $250. The Stanford researchers seem not to be concerned about the explanation offered by the new semi-official web site, realrawmilkfacts, that "it would not be ethical to intentionally expose research participants to a high-risk product such as raw milk" as part of a scientific study.
A small study out of Michigan in 2007 showed as many as 80% of individuals suffering from lactose intolerance gained relief from raw milk.
Reader Comments (46)
Nice piece...
I made my call early this morning. We need everyone to call and jam the phone lines.
When you call take 15 seconds to say why raw milk is important to you. Mention lactose intolerance or asthma or what ever raw milk has done for you.
After 20 months the Wisconsin regulators could become supporters of raw milk. This means doing it right and working with them and demanding good safety standards and testing. It is time to reach out and become collaborators. Be the first to reach out and work together. Put your pride aside.....it is time to work for a far greater good.
They are in a very tight spot and if they do not help....this will be exposed as well.
When this bill passes it is time to work hard...very hard developing and implimenting food safety programs that actually work and also selling raw milk and educating lots of consumers.
Wisconsin will not dare take away something that has been shown to be safe and popular.
It is time to work hard and realize the ante....the stakes are high and the benefits are huge.
Mark
One thing I really appreciate is your willingness for it to "all hang out"...little to no censorship, even when a post totally opposes your POV. I wish all involved were as willing to hear all sides.
Case in point, I was in a lively but civil discussion with a man in the comment section of Marler's blog. We were having a good back and forth on my favorite defense of people's access to raw milk...that the government had no constitutional authority to deny folks nutritional choice. The discussion was, as I said, lively but civil...and ended when I posted a word for word listing of what the constitution says the feds can do, and the 10th amendment limiting government powers to those specifically listed, and asked where in that the government got the power to make nutritional choices for us.
Well, unlike your blog, and mine, www.JuicyMaters.com, Marlers is completely moderated with Marler having to approve each post before it shows up. Mine, a simple cut/paste of part of the constitution and the 10th amendment, never showed up...Marler is afraid of the truth.
I take that as a good thing. Regulators, and their minions like the ambulance chasing Marler, see the writing on the wall, and they are afraid...very afraid.
The truth will win. The truth always wins. Marler and his ilk know it...and try to postpone it with, in Marler's case, censorship. You have to wonder about someone...anyone...who is afraid of the constitution.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-raw-milk-20100422,0,2185455.story?page=1
cp
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-raw-milk-20100422,0,393187,full.story
cp
http://hartkeisonline.com/2010/04/23/trautman-wall-may-be-local-food-movements-line-in-the-sand/
As said many times, if raw milk was so dangerous, why aren't the many consumers dropping dead or ill from it? Ha, it's not ethical to research with raw milk but it is with the drugs? What BS. Follow the money.
BH, didn't the last sitting prez say that was "just a GD piece of paper"?
From cp's link: "Though the Wisconsin company that purchases the farm's regular milk (about 2,000 gallons a month) recently said it would stop buying unless the couple ceases selling raw milk, they vow to continue."
Why would it matter to the processor if the farmer sells raw milk? What is he fearing?
"Drinking contaminated raw milk can cause vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain."
Duh, consuming anything contaminated can cause illness. Processed phoods are promoted constantly along with "medications" and that is condoned by many. IMO they should all be jailed for poisoning people.
which begs the question: who is funding the stanford study? the funding source will most likely dictate the results. i guarantee it.
as for a "personal decision or public danger," at what point do automobiles become a public danger? at what point do handguns become a public danger, or cigarettes, or alcohol, or processed foods that lead to diabetes and obesity? should we outlaw all vehicles, all weapons, all cigarettes and booze, and even processed foods because of the injuries and deaths they produce or the costs to society they impose?
if the proponents of the "public dangers" of raw milk were objective, reasonable and had any integrity at all, they would strive to outlaw vehicles, weapons, alcohol, cigarettes, booze and processed foods because of the greater "public danger" these elements present than the alleged public dangers of raw milk.
I haven't seen any reference to the James Orchard case on your blog. Campylobacter from raw milk consumption; Guillian Barre Syndrome and partial paralysis, hopefully temporary; hospitalized in Pittsburgh. Certainly one of the most serious raw-milk induced illness cases in recent years.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_677255.html
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/health/23199238/detail.html
Do the lawyers know - if someone contracts a foodborne illness from raw milk during the study, could they sue Stanford (or does the release form exempt the university from liability)?
Long time no hear from. We've missed you.
I haven't made reference to the Pennsylvania illness you link to, but a few commentators have...and now you have as well. I don't write about every illness ascribed to raw milk (or fast food, or ground beef), though I have encouraged proponents of raw milk to establish high sanitation and production standards; I've also encouraged regulators to establish education programs for raw milk producers as a more effective way to avoid illnesses than confrontation.
I did write in detail last year about a woman in California who developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome, apparently from contaminated raw milk, and about the heartache around the situation:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2009/5/27/a-husband-claims-his-wife-was-a-victim-of-betrayeal-by-a-raw.html
David
however, the regulators and anti-raw milk advocates who blog on this site do not concomitantly question and challenge the existing industrial food complex on why that industrial food complex causes so many more illnesses and deaths than allegedly does the raw milk producer.
alas, the raw milk advocates appear to be reasonable and dedicated to food safety while the anti-raw milk advocates seem to be dedicated to vilify a particular food product while defending the unsafe industrial-food-complex-illness-causing system as a whole. it appears the anti-raw milk advocates have their priorities and vision skewed and out of kilter and instead have an axe to grind.
Gary, do you actually read our posts? cp has discussed natural, unprocessed food alternatives to raw milk many times here. I cannot recall he/she ever condoning the "industrial food complex." This is a raw milk blog for the most part, which is why I discuss raw milk-related issues that David writes about (there are other venues where I discuss other food products). It is obvious from Bill Marler's blog that most of his lawsuits and activism in food safety has been directed at industrial ground beef and other mass produced products. And, yes these products cause more illnesses and deaths than raw milk. But, if the same number of people who ate deli meats and undercooked ground beef also drank raw milk, you bet raw milk would be high on the list of food safety threats based on raw numbers. The number of illnesses and deaths are only small because the number of consumers is small. Unless the practices do become safer as you claim to desire (e.g., the raw milk industry walks the talk instead of spending all their PR time denying outbreaks and pushing baby formulia), the numbers will climb as the market grows. For example, do you and others condone the practices in this video? There appears to be little regard for sanitation. Has anyone sent these folks Tim Wightman's videos to perhaps help them do better?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-raw-milk-20100422,0,2185455.story?page=1
Bottom line: people who are concerned about raw milk advertising claims and raw milk safety are not automatically part of big ag and/or big pharma. It's not that simple.
The fact that you take one isolated case a try and make a big deal of it speaks volumes. Yes Raw milk isn't perfect and there are some risk involved with drinking it....but you could say that about much that the scum at the FDA allow the citizens of this country have access to. Nobody says raw milk is perfect....but if you add up all those who have increased their health via consumption, to those who 'don't', you'll find that the chances for benefit far out weigh the risk. If you apply the attitude of people like yourself (who 'supposedly' are protecting the public) to other products, their would be little that the people would be allowed to have. The double standard that you perpetuate reduces your credibility to near zero.
I think it important to find out who is sponsoring the Stanford study....before the results are made public. And I'm sure, depending on the results, either the pro or anti raw milk folks will be trumpeting the results. Lykke, your attempt to discredit the raw milk proponents is comical, especially when those who are against it rely on the same tactic.
I wonder if anyone has sued the myriad of Institutions of Higher Learning that have 'shown' that Monsanto's GMO crops pose no threat to the future of agriculture....and how many studys (financed by the corporate devil themselves) have been covered up or hidden away because they don't ascribe to the corporate line.
If your line of logic and reasoning can't be applied evenly to BOTH sides of an argument....it is beyond worthless.
While you and I almost certainly disagree over the Wisconsin legislation and FDA enforcement actions, I agree with you that the Stanford study represents a great opportunity. If raw milk does in fact help relieve lactose intolerance, then by all means we ought to do the research and figure out how and why that would be. As someone who has cited that same quote about raw milk milk research being "ethically questionable," I'll swallow my words in this case. I supppose that if the research proposoal is good enough for the IRB at Stanford Medical School, its good enough for me.
As I mention in my piece on the study, however, it's worth noting that the researchers are screening out participants who fall into high-risk groups like pregnant women and individuals with weakened immune systems. Perhaps my biggest issue with raw milk proponents is the continued assertion that raw milk is not only safe, but it is safe for EVERYBODY - a fact that is as patently false for raw milk as it is for countless other (unregulated) foods.
Patrick
http://foodinamerica.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/stanford-university-school-of-medicine-to-study-effect-of-raw-milk-consumption-on-lactose-intolerance/
From Sylvia's comment on this post (comment number 6):
"BH, didn't the last sitting prez say that was "just a GD piece of paper"? " (referring to the constitution).
Sylvia, that allegation has been made, and, since I wasn't there I cannot say definitively that Bush did or didn't say it, but given the source of the allegation, I look at it with a great deal of skepticism.
The allegation was made in an article for "Capitol Hill Blue" by Doug Thompson. It allegedly occurred during a private conversation in the oval office in November of 2005. Thompson supposedly verified the allegation with three sources...but does not name the sources. Also, Thompson has a long history of un-verified claims, and has had to retract many of the "facts" in his stories that turned out not to be facts after all. By his own admission he often writes based on unverified information, but then expects us to believe this one.
Sorry...but it doesn't pass the smell test.
We raw milk advocates get understandably upset when regulators go off half cocked with unverified allegations about outbreaks with no actual evidence. Let's not do the very thing we complain about.
BH
http://www.JiuicyMaters.com
That ecology begins with the most abundant and durable crop on earth---grass---which unsurprisingly is a tremendously effective solar collector, a perfect companion to the soil and its microbial colonies, a cleaner of water and air, and a marvelous carbon store. Virtually indigestible by humans, grass is a necessary food for cattle. Fortunately for cattle, eating grass is the best way to generate more of it, since grazing it, walking on it, and expelling wastes onto it, stimulates root growth and balances and maintains the complex biological and geological factors that create healthy soil, water, and air (which is necessary for grass, cattle, humans, and everything else). Cattle transform that grass into milk, a food very easily digested by most humans, which happens to contain an astounding mix of ingredients beneficial to human health, including a complete protein, beneficial bacteria and enzymes (that can be enhanced by culturing, which also preserves the milk), calcium, vitamins A, D, B6, B12, and the anti-cancer agent, conjugated linoleic acid. Not incidentally, human exposure to that ecology all along its chain creates a strong immune system, and probably resistance to many non-infectious diseases (a process that we are just beginning to understand). That is at very best a mere glance at the glorious interconnectedness of milk ecology.
Now put it all into its historical context as a supporter of human health and economies since the dawn of man, and one might begin to understand how fatuous, silly, and really puny is the notion that we can improve lives by wrenching mankind out of nature and into our modern industrial/technological/legal/regulatory systems.
But worshippers of manmade systems apparently cannot be dissuaded. They are confident. So confident in fact, that they would use force to wall natural men off from Nature.
This is, I suppose, how we got to the point where presumably intelligent people argue that low immunity---created in large part by living in an industrial/technological/legal/regulatory system---is why that system must now rule.
You sound a tad nervous about that Stanford study, as well you should. But I'll predict it's your side that will have the ready-made "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" approach to the study's outcome. You see, if it's like the studies out of Europe that demonstrate raw milk's role in alleviating allergies and asthma, the researchers will say, to effect: "Yes, raw milk has a significant effect in relieving lactose intolerance...BUT because raw milk is dangerous, we can't recommend it be used for those purposes." (That is, if they want the study published in an American scientific journal, they'll say that.) And if it has no effect, they'll say, "See, what'd we tell you."
There's no way of knowing whether your prediction might work out, since there hasn't been a serious study at a well-established research organization conducted in this country in recent years comparing raw milk with pasteurized milk, and for good reason--the health establishment has been afraid of the results.
David
I'm not against the study, per se, and am curious about the results if it can be conducted safely. And, the extremes of the two "sides" of the debate will likely "spin" the results to suit their needs. The people not at the extremes can judge for themselves.
Despite the majority opinion on your blog, I don't do drug research, but based on the commercials and warning labels, I assume that anyone signing up to get $250 to participate are made aware of risks, like this one from raw milk:
http://www.triplicate.com/20091103107383/Online-Extras/Community/MARIS-CLIMB-3-Part-Series
The same could be said about a new vaccine or synthetic drug. Patrick points out that the study subject must not be in a "high risk" category - I assume they are not enrolling babies, children, and people with immune system problems.
In the not-so-long ago past, researchers (probably even Stanford) used to do feeding studies to learn about infectious diseases, sometimes using incarcerated individuals. That is deemed "unethical," today. Raw milk has been placed in the same category in the minds of many (equivalent to feeding a hazardous substance). Apparently, Stanford's human ethics/IRB committee doesn't view raw milk that way.
This will be interesting to watch on several levels.
Or the raw milk people may ask why some can consume raw dairy without adverse effects, yet pasteurized dairy causes them to be miserable. Or as David's response says, ".BUT because raw milk is dangerous, we can't recommend it be used for those purposes."
BH, I didn't bother to verify the supposed statement by bush. I've heard him say really stupid things while playing govn'r of TX. Something I wouldn't put past him. I don't play the political party game either.
The children in Australia are having adverse reactions to the H1N1 vacc. The media didn't report the many here in the US.