Let's Get Real--the Hartmann Dairy's Problem Is Every Raw Dairy's Problem, and It Threatens to Undo Lots of Hard Work
Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 09:49PM 
Scott Trautman's planned raw milk group can't get here soon enough for me--"an alternate - FUNCTIONAL - SAFE - system, without DATCP, without FDA," he wrote following my previus post. "Inspect ourselves, train ourselves, have standards far above yet - SENSIBLE not ARBITRARY."
The first thing this alternate system would need to do is send an emergency team over to Minnesota, to the Hartmann farm, and find out what the hell is wrong over there.
The news just keeps getting worse and worse from the Hartmann dairy. Three more illnesses reported, two of them children, making for a total of eight people sickened. At least one child previously had been reported with hemolytic uremic syndrome, though that child has since reportedly been released from a hospital.
In the midst of all this bad news, the Minnesota Department of Health has shown itself to be more respectful of food rights than any other public health agency I've ever seen.
In a Q&A on its web site, the Minnesota Department of Health raises this question:
"Are you trying to clamp down on all raw milk sales? It seems like you are trying to take away our food source, our ability to choose to drink raw milk."
As part of the answer, the agency responds, "Like Mr. Hartmann, we wholeheartedly endorse the value of consumer choice...in this case, human disease, in the form of E. coli O157:H7 infection, has been clearly linked with consumption of milk from Mr. Hartmann’s farm... We nonetheless support the rights of consumers who wish to assume that risk, IF they do so knowingly."
Yes, there is lots of rhetoric about the dangers of raw milk, but an acknowledgment of food choice on the part of public health professionals? That is something new and different.
I've read the Hartmann family's statements and, much as I would like to believe the family's denials that its milk hasn't made eight people sick, I can't. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the dairy is the cause of the illnesses.
Beyond the problem of the Hartmann farm's customers getting sick, this situation is creating serious problems for advocates of raw milk and food rights.
Here's the most serious of those problems: We say we want raw milk treated the way other foods are treated in the event there are illnesses. From all I can see, that has happened here, and then some.
Some bloggers, Miguel and Deeply Concerned, in particular, want to deny the validity of genetic linkages, but the reality is that PFGE linkages have become the gold standard for identifying sources of food contamination--not just for raw milk, but for all foods. It's fine to debate the science behind the linkages, but in the real world, where regulators and farmers operate, this is the way the system works for now.
Another problem is that this case threatens to turn our greatest asset--public opinion--against raw milk and food rights. As I said in my previous post, many people are disgusted by situations like that occurring in Wisconsin involving the harassment of the Hershberger farm.
But they can easily become outraged over something like the Hartmann situation. The latest cases indicate that people have been getting sick since the first illnesses were brought to public attention. The possibility that the dairy has been producing milk after learning of illnesses has a lot of people upset. Just read the comments following the local paper's latest revelation that three additional people were reported ill, and see how many readers agree with which comments.
When this case first came to light, I thought the Minnesota Department of Health and a local paper were accusing Hartmann before all the evidence was in. But as I've reported, the department has since made the connection. Perhaps the one piece of good news out of this case is the department's effort to educate consumers about how public health professionals handle food safety problems, and how connections are made between illnesses and particular food sources, as communicated in that Q&A I alluded to previously.
It explains how the genetic connection was made: "During May 2010, E. coli O157:H7 isolates from 5 patients sent by separate clinical laboratories to the MDH PHL were found to all have the same DNA fingerprint by PFGE testing...This particular DNA fingerprint type (which also can be called a 'strain' of E. coli O157:H7) had never been seen before in Minnesota."
And it explains how failure to find the pathogen in the actual milk samples isn't an adequate excuse. "The fact that the outbreak strain was not found in samples of product taken from the farm or homes does not mean it wasn’t in the product that sickened the individuals. In many cases, only particular batches of product may have been contaminated. The product from the contaminated batches may not be available for testing because it has already been consumed. Even if the contaminated batches are available for testing, the contamination may not be uniformly distributed throughout the product. It can be difficult to find the 'needle in the haystack' when only small amounts of product are able to be used for a laboratory test. The fact that some pathogen was not found in a sample taken today does not mean it wasn’t there yesterday or a week ago, or won’t be there tomorrow..."
"The outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 was found in the manure of some individual calves, sheep, and cattle pens. Of note, the calves were likely drinking the same milk as that consumed by the cases.
"Standard public health practice does not require finding the illness strain of pathogen in either environmental or product samples in order to determine the source of an outbreak and before intervention to prevent further illness should be initiated. In fact, it is quite rare in foodborne investigations that food product is available for testing as it is often perishable or has been completely consumed by the time the outbreak is recognized."
A number of people, myself included, have said any number of times that raw milk can cause illness, just as any food can. The problem comes when the shit, quite literally, hits the fan. Then we need to be prepared to be true to our rhetoric, own up to problems, and push problem raw dairies to own up to problems. There needs to be introspection and self assessment as to what went wrong. The denial and pretending that a case this blatant isn't real is a disservice to all dairies that consistently produce high-quality raw dairy products.
As Scott Trautman suggests, we need to move beyond words, to actions, to taking responsibility. If public opinion turns against raw milk, believe me, the public health and agriculture bureaucrats will lick their chops and move in for the kill.
Reader Comments (55)
Social responsibility is as important, if not more so, than individual responsibility in a free society.
As producers and consumers of raw milk, if we wish to have a true free market in raw milk and raw milk products, we also have to take responsibility for public health and food safety. Simply shrugging off this responsibility with constitutional rhetoric will only result in more problems, less freedom, and less democracy.
I am not trying to downplay the importance of miguel's compelling critique of existing epidemeological techniques, or the evil in corporate agri-bussiness and their regulatory allies, trying to drive the last vestiges of sustainable family-scale farmers off the land in favor of CAFO-style farms.
What I am trying to say is that we need to create a certifying agency to deal with this issue of raw milk quality and safety in a proactive and constructive manner. It would be a grave mistake to limit our goal to merely food safety. We must attempt to elevate raw milk quality to a new level, and include artisinal value added products such as yogurt, buttter, and fresh/soft-ripened cheeses, while empowering raw milk farmers with the knowledge and tools to diversify their farms, to make them more resiliant in the face of the inevitable onslaught of state and corporate attacks.
We must begin at square one, however -- identifying the heygene and microbiolgical issues of concern in raw milk production.
This post comes from the south of France. I have been drinking ( what I thought was raw milk ) raw milk sold under the brand Marguerite Fresh Lait for about a week.
I did some research on Marguerite and found that it is sold as fresh raw milk but it is not really as raw as a I thought. Margurite is a COOP of farmers that commingle their raw milk together. It is processed by microfiltration after the cream has been removed and pasteurized. The bacteria (most if any way ) is removed by microfiltration and then the pasteurized cream is added back into the raw protein and water fraction of the milk. It is semi raw milk. Something I always thought was very dangerous..?? Learn something everyday.
So it is half raw and half pasteurized. Not really OPDC 100% raw and none outsourced and artisanal and grass fed raw milk.
So I am still looking for a comparable raw milk that is sold in retail out here in the EU world. There are no raw milk vending machines in Southern France that I can find. They appear to be located in Italy and Slovenia. Switzerland did not have any that I could find.
I have not tried farms yet but I also have not found any grass fed operations. They are all confinement barn systems with seasonal access to some pastures.
As far as food safety is concerned.....
If a farmer has not deeply considered a RAMP type food safety program that includes testing and monitoring of data along all points of production...then that farmer is really not introspectively being as critical or honest as he should be with himself.
Mother nature is wonderful.....but mankind has messed with her so badly that the superbugs that did not exist in nature before now have control of her. God Move Over...GMO ( and Monsanto antibiotics etc ) is now part of nature and we must deal with it.
When Freedom collides with renewal of your farms insurance policy....a taste of reality hits you in the face....
Blissful Freedom is not real. It is a dreamy state of utopia. We have freedom when we have information and we can manage our reality and reduce risk and assure a level of acceptable safety while at the same time nourishing people. This takes investment and committment. It is not a free or primative system.
If I was at the Hartmans....I would start from scratch and establish a 100% comprehensive RAMP program and add manure testing to the protocal as well. They must grab ahold of their reality and assure that they are safe...this is an investment and deep committment.
Mark
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1
David,I don't believe Lykke could have done a better job of defending the credibility of this epidemiological study.You even called PFGE the "gold standard" just like Lykke would have.
I have posted lots of information,not my opinion but scientific studies,that support the invalidity of PFGE's in finding a DNA match.PFGE is the gold standard------for distinguishing between strains of bacteria.Did the MDH do 6 PFGE analysis using 6 different enzymes for each of the bacteria samples that they found were matching?If they did not the probability that the strains really match is very low.
You do live in Massachusetts.Why don't you ask Lynn Margulis her opinion of the Minnesota dept of health epidemiological study?
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/margulis/
Our greatest asset is not public opinion.Our greatest asset is the trust that we have established between the farmer and consumer.This is what is under attack.We need to stick together and support each other.We need to support the people that are sick in every way possible and we need to support the Hartmann farm too.No credible scientific evidence has been offered yet that implicates them in these illnesses.In the face of this attack by the Health Authorities we need to avoid fighting amongst ourselves over who is to blame for the illnesses.The truth is no ones knows what caused these people to become ill.The reason that we don't know is that,going back to Steve Bemis' 11 great thoughts, An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous 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."The MDH's epidemiological investigation is none of these.
But why does this all matter?
Are these techniques believed by the public at large? Yes. Are regulators and legislators, both pro and con raw milk, guided by this science? Yes. Is our failure to address concerns and our inclination to deny sicknesses demonstrated however fitfully, by this kind of science, risks to the raw milk movement? A BIG YES. Can lawyers use these kind of correlation studies, however flawed as science, to get over the modest 51% proof standard in civil litigation? Yes.
Both Minnesota and Michigan regulators in the context of recent allegations of outbreak have SHOWN A SIGNIFICANT WILLINGNESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE REGARDING RAW MILK (11GT#5) even as they attempt to hunt down the cause of illnesses. They can do more to share their methodology and their reasoning in pursuing the science in these cases. Nevertheless, in important respects, they demonstrate clear progress towards my "11 Great Thoughts" point #9 which calls for more transparent EPI: http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-11-Great-Thoughts.html .
I prefer to look at health departments as the detectives on the case. Ideally, they are the fact-finders who will help us all get better in our efforts to produce safe and healthful raw milk and raw milk products. In the worst case, they are allies of big-ag interests and anti-raw milk forces, legislative and otherwise. I don't see this worst case at least in Minnesota and Michigan recently. We need to seize these opportunities to work collaboratively, and positively, or risk much worse. A chorus of denials without facts (which the health departments still need to share) will not serve our cause well.
My concern is that the epidemiological investigations are biased from the beginning.They start with the search for the bacteria that caused the illness.It is not the individual people involved in the investigation that are to blame.It is our belief, as a society ,in the germ theory of disease.This all is a result of the average person's frightening lack of understanding of bacteria.
I won't waste my time trying to get through to epidemiologists or for that matter,even the public,what is important to me is that people who choose to drink raw milk,understand the role of bacteria in their health.
What would motivate the dept of health to falsely implicate a food source in an outbreak of illness?Who decides what the protocols are for doing an investigation?Everything is run from the top down.Someone has a list of goals that they are working on.One of the long term goals of the people at the top is to "reduce the number of states where raw milk is legal by 2020(Healthy People 2020). There is the goal. A strategy is needed to achieve that goal. The current strategy appears to be to divide the alliance between the producer and consumer by destroying the trust that has been established.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
"The art of war is of vital importance to the State."
" All warfare is based on deception."
" If his forces are united, separate them."
"to attack your enemy,attack his strategy"
Our strength,our trust ,our unity is under attack.
Our response must be to support each other in every way possible.If consumers are sick,let's give them whatever they need to recover.If farmers are under attack let's not join in the attack.We must question health departments about sources of bias in their investigations.We must insist that evidence is based on science and not just on convention.We must question authority.
WE need to work with the local people in charge of the health department to broaden the investigations to include sources of illness other than point sources of bacteria.
My comments attempt to address the hopeful tendency of at least two state health departments to do things a bit more openly, while at least appearing to recognize the rights we have to make private agreements to obtain the foods of our choice.
"The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the dairy is the cause of the illnesses".
I hope that you are prepared to retract these words and offer an apology to the Hartmanns. The MDofH is the only opinion that has credibility in your eyes.Do you really believe that PFGE can be used to "match" strains of bacteria?Of course if Bill Marler says so ,it must be true.
If I put the E. coli O157:H7 cultured from the Hartmann's calf into a glass of your raw milk would you drink it? Would you give it to your child or grandchild?
I'm curious about something. David says, "A number of people, myself included, have said any number of times that raw milk can cause illness, just as any food can."
Can you, miguel, name a single example where raw milk, like any food, caused an illness? What criteria made you believe it was the source. Or, would you say that it is the customer's fault if they are not strong enough to handle E. coli O157:H7 in a glass of raw milk or a piece of cheese.
" We'll give him a fair trial,and hang him"
The whole tone of David's blog was so strange.The MD of H found Hartmann farm guilty by issuing press releases,Bill Marler gleefully confirmed the guilty verdict as just,then David piled on with his agreement that Hartmanns were guilty as charged.
David says:
"Some bloggers want to deny the validity of genetic linkages, but the reality is that PFGE linkages have become the gold standard for identifying sources of food contamination--not just for raw milk, but for all foods. It's fine to debate the science behind the linkages, but in the real world, where regulators and farmers operate, this is the way the system works for now. "
If it is fine to debate the science behind the linkages why doesn't anyone respond to the research(not my opinion) that I posted that stated that the PFGE was NOT valid for finding matching strains of bacteria,only for distinguishing between strains of bacteria.Go ahead show me any reputable research that says that PFGE is valid when used to identify matching strains of bacteria.
I guess we are just supposed to accept injustice because it is meted out equally to everyone.
I appreciate your informative postings about PFGE. I wish all of the information (and summaries) which you post were consolidated into one document, that would make it very easy for someone to contest the validity of these PFGE test results.
I am wondering, too, if there are more accurate methods to gather and analyze epidemeological evidence that could implicate/exonerate a raw milk producer such as the Hartmanns.
http://www.cdc.gov/pulsenet/
You accuse Miguel of selectively citing information, but do you not think it is possible that the government and opponents of raw milk do the same thing? And do you not think it is possible that the public health authorities techniques for tracing diseases could be flawed?
I'm not sure what information in your link rebuts what Miguel has been saying about PFGE. Care to explain? I find Miguel's opinions on the subject very interesting, though I'm going to keep an open mind.
Milky way
I select parts of the research because a lot of it is hard to understand and it would take up too much room to post it all.My hope is that people will find the part I post interesting enough to read the whole article.If you want to post articles that disagree with the ones I post ,I would welcome the opportunity to have a discussion about these things.Usually I post the conclusion of a research paper or the discussion that comes at the end.I do pick research that is published in peer reviewed journals much of the time.Rather that attack my credibility why don't you join the discussion and give your viewpoint of these ideas.
You raise a number of important concerns and criticisms. You say, “We need to stick together and support each other. We need to support the people that are sick in every way possible and we need to support the Hartmann farm too.”
I’m not sure what you have in mind to accomplish those two goals. How do you plan to support those who are ill? By denying they got sick from raw milk? I spoke with a number of those who became ill in the Midwest—long-time raw milk drinkers—who felt rejected by the denials of raw milk advocates that these individuals likely got sick from raw milk. Is this what you have in mind?
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/3/28/in-face-of-fda-pressure-in-dairy-ends-distribution-and-campy.html
As for supporting the Hartmanns, does support mean encouraging them to continue producing milk that appears to be sickening some drinkers, and also alienating ever more ordinary citizens? I prefer Mark McAfee’s approach: “If I was at the Hartmanns....I would start from scratch and establish a 100% comprehensive RAMP program and add manure testing to the protocol as well. They must grab ahold of their reality and assure that they are safe...this is an investment and deep commitment.”
As for your arguments that the germ theory, epidemiological evidence, and PFGE linkages are so badly flawed they are without merit, I respect your view, but I can’t support recommending that raw dairy producers try to apply your arguments when confronted with the kind of crisis now facing the Hartmanns. As a related example, I feel our monetary system is deeply flawed, indeed immoral, because we went off the gold standard, and now allow our Federal Reserve to simply create money out of thin air. The current system creates endless problems. I suppose I could attempt to not participate in the monetary system, but I’d have a heck of a time trying to survive. It’s all we have, unless and until the existing system collapses or is adjusted, so I accept it as the will of our collective political body, and participate.
Same situation with the epidemiological evidence and PFGE linkages. I could rant and rave and say the science is flawed and tell farmers to push back till the system changes and accepts a different view about how harmful bacteria originate and create illness. Right now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control uses PFGE linkages as key supporting evidence in all types of foodborne illness.
http://www.cdc.gov/pulsenet/index.htm
If raw dairies and other food producers want to produce and sell food, that’s the system they are stuck with, the rules they have to play under. In that vein, I wonder what your answer to Milky Way’s question is: “Can you… name a single example where raw milk, like any food, caused an illness?”
You say, “I guess we are just supposed to accept injustice because it is meted out equally to everyone.” In a sense you could say that’s the situation with any number of laws and regulations. There are people who feel our income tax laws are unjust, but they tend to be enforced equally, and those who refuse to obey them invariably wind up with severe penalties.
I, along with others who support raw milk consumption, have long been demanding that public health officials simply treat raw milk as they would any other food, not single it out for “special” consideration, which has consisted of either jumping to conclusions about raw milk's role or using any illness as an excuse to ban it. Now, maybe you weren’t one of those who was drawn to that equal-treatment argument. But now that that approach seems to have been honored in Minnesota, I feel compelled to acknowledge the attempt at even-handedness.
Finally, you say, “I hope that you are prepared to retract these words and offer an apology to the Hartmanns.” I certainly am. Unfortunately, right now we only have “health departments as detectives on the case,” as Steve Bemis puts it. As I said in my post, I would love to see a raw dairy association send an emergency team in and do its own investigation of the Hartmann situation. That’s not going to happen any time soon, I’m afraid. In the meantime, we have little choice but to accept the word of the health department “detectives” in charge. I believe they’ve made a strong case with the tools at their disposal. Let’s not beat a dead horse, as it were.
David
I'm not sure war of the literature quotes is a useful approach to this discussion, but will give thought to posting relevant links that are not "cherry picked" to avoid clogging David's blog with laboratory details many probably don't care about.
Miguel, your commentary on stool composition brings me back to the question you did not answer. Let me try to restate. First, suppose your hypothesis is correct, and those who became ill from Hartmann raw dairy products had an imbalance in their microbial gut community. They were raw milk drinkers, why didn't that prevent the problem if you think raw milk fosters a balanced gut? Second, how do you predict a gut ecology out of balance in someone who otherwise looks perfectly healthy? Coming from a preventive medicine background, I am trying to understand how you translate your theories into actions that farmers and consumers can take to prevent bad outcomes from swallowing E. coli O157:H7 in a food. You want us to test the stools of patients to characterize the microbial community. But, how would we use this information, especially when the other hypothesis is that drinking raw milk promotes a healthy gut. I'd be glad to consider your thoughts on this.
Thanks.
I don't mean to speak for Miguel, but I think there is an obvious rebuttal to the final argument you make.
Raw milk is not a silver bullet for healthy gut ecology, it is only a part of a diet of traditional nutrient dense whole foods. Someone could drink raw milk, but follow it by consuming large amounts of something bad for them, a highly processed and/or toxic industrially produced nutrient deficient and enzyme sapping food or beverage. The fact that you drank a glass of raw milk prior to eating all the bad food would not automatically mean you have a healthy gut ecology.
You ask an important question that should be pursued. For what it's worth, I have interviewed people (or parents of children) who became sick from raw milk, and there has been a striking commonality: all of them were deeply committed to healthy diets devoid of processed foods. Raw milk was part of an overall approach in their (or their children's) diets to promote health.
Lets call it an internal self-evaluation. Per Steve Bemis and David's idea about doing a separate investigation into the Hartmann situation, would it be possible to query the customers who experienced illness about their dietary choices in addition to raw milk? Minnesota has already figured out that they didn't have any other food in common. But, did they drink raw milk, then consume "large amounts of something bad for them, a highly processed and/or toxic industrially produced nutrient deficient and enzyme sapping food or beverage." This would be interesting data to add to the discussion. But, if they weren't eating junk food, what next?