Relax. No one’s in control.”
A Buddhist teacher, speaking about our insatiable desire for predictability, made that off-hand remark during a talk I attended recently. He was arguing that such a desire for guarantees is unattainable, a mirage in a world that is always changing. Instead, life is just the opposite, he maintained, full of unpredictable occurrences–always has been and always will be.
Despite so much evidence to the contrary, we continue to think we can gain control of events around us. Last evening, I watched an ABC Nightline segment about how the parents of a Boy Scout are suing the organization because their teenage son, working for his Eagle badge (the highest level of achievement), had died from complications of heat exposure during a twenty-mile hike in Florida. The correspondent said the segment had been prompted by the parents’ lawyer bringing the suit to Nightline’s attention (gotta love those enterprising lawyers).
Based on Nightline’s account, it seemed that the scouts in charge had taken appropriate precautions, packing plenty of water. When the boy working for his eagle badge encountered problems, they stopped. Then, when the boy collapsed, one of the leaders spent 45 minutes on resuscitation, before calling in a medical helicopter.
What was most striking to me was the questioning by Nightline’s correspondent of three Boy Scout representatives. He asked, or rather demanded, “Can you tell me with complete certainty and security that I can put my kids into a scouting program and something like this isn’t going to happen?” One of the Boy Scout reps told him what he wanted to hear. “Absolutely. This is a safe program.”
Later in the interview, the Nightline correspondent asked again, “Are you saying the scouts have never been at fault? No Scout master has ever made a mistake in terms of preparation ahead of time?”
Those are the kinds of questions, really accusations, increasingly made in our society’s growing obsession with guarantees of predictability.
And I wonder if food regulators view segments like the one on Nightline and envision themselves sitting on the hot seat reserved last night for representatives of the Boy Scouts. No one wants to be there. With food, it’s a cinch to avoid the problem by simply requiring that foods be zapped. Maybe the regulators understand our cultural obsession better than I do and are smartly trying to feed it.
Zapping at least reduces the chances of immediate contamination. We understand less about the impact on people’s overall health and immune function of altering the nutritional composition of food via zapping, but that’s a problem for others to worry about years down the road, in the view of the regulators.
All this by way of suggesting that, as hopeful as the expanding movement for raw dairy standards might seem, it faces a rough road. As Milky Way put it following my previous post, “The reality that standards are even controversial shows the complexity of implementing them. Furthermore, there are many unknowns relating to those ‘end points.'”
As the standard-setting process for raw dairy continues to move forward in Colorado and California, and gets launched this week in Wisconsin, so does the consumer education process. That, in my view, is more critical than trying to win over the regulators. Some of the things consumers learn could be uncomfortable for farmers, such as the reality that all raw milk isn’t created equal–some is richer or tastier or lasts longer before souring.
As farmers establish standards, they focus ever more on the key ingredients for quality, and consumers learn in the process that there’s more to high-quality raw milk than simply feeding grass to cows. Blair McMorran, executive director the Raw Milk Association of Colorado, points out following my previous post just a few questions that come up as part of establishing standards: “What kind of sanitizers are used? How often do you clean the ice-water bath? How much grain do you feed? Where do your animals come from? Where does your feed come from? What is your stillborn rate? What kind of medical interventions are used? Every step of their process has learning opportunities.”
As part of the process, the benefits of raw dairy in nutrition and cooking will become better known, and even raw dairy cookbooks like that envisioned by Violet Willis can become a reality (and congrats to Violet for almost making it to MasterChef.) All these things help expand the marketplace. The link Don Neeper included following my previous to an article out of Texas is just another example of how much demand for raw milk is expanding.
And in the meantime, the national culture hopefully moves away from fairy-tale-like guarantees of complete protection from adversity to informed decision making. ?
***
Here’s an example of how the notion of raw milk as part of a healthy lifestyle is beginning to get past the censors and permeate the mass culture…via an interview of celebrity osteopathic physician Joseph Mercola by conventional celebrity physician Dr. Mehmet Oz (the mention is near the end of the four-minute segment).
Dr. Oz made the opening comment…that….Dr. Mercola is the doctor that your doctor does not want you to see or know about!!!
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/alternative-health-controversy-pt-1
Go Dr. Mercola!!!!
Mark
Pasteurization is a 100 year attempt to control mother nature. It has failed because she has adapted to the heat of processing and now illnesses get by the processor and immune systems are failing because the good stuff in milk has been destroyed.
Pasteurization also destroyed the personal responsibility that is required to build value added. Hence the loss of small farms and imported foods from China. A small farmer gets the same as an efficient PMO CAFO…there is no value added…no value for clean milk or green grass.
Raw milk will bring success to those that listen to nature and learn that they stand humbly with her and work with her.
"Relax no one is in control" is a little devoid of the Buddist's appreciation for nature. I know that she is definitely in control and farmers that harness her power will sustain. RAMP is an acknowledgement of these powerful natural powers.
Not a challenge to them.
Mark
My thing – my part to play – what I have to offer – in sincerity to the better good of us all, I've come to see as investigating and encouraging safety across the broad spectrum of producers.
I do not believe for one second that a hand milker cannot be safe, or that all that I choose to do for safety, guarantees my safety. But I do feel strongly that I honor all of us in this movement by taking safety seriously every day, knowing what I do to others if I were to make others sick.
It is not healthy for me to take the task of safety trivially. We are so busy; we have many challenges. I must choose well my priorities. I am flawed as we all are, and I choose to address the critical flaws that could affect others as best I can. I have seen in others, and myself, that when I am arrogant, I believe things convenient to my vanity and my convenience. That's when I make mistakes. So recognizing this about myself, I have created a support structure that addresses my flaws.
If I ever want to solve anything, I have to take responsibility for it. If I want to make excuses for myself, I say it's out of my hands. But I choose the discipline of taking that responsibility, and putting enough thought into it, looking at it enough ways to find out how I can change it, or whatever part I can, on my own.
And raw milk safety I am far more in control of than a lot else.
And the more of us that choose to spend more of our valuable and limited time thinking about safety, the further we will get, the stronger our position.
I can't sleep worth crap here the last couple nights, thinking about my presentation on Thursday. Tightening it up to reflect what's important, and what I'm doing, and not preaching. Message not received, no credit given. Failure. That's my grading curve for myself. But if for one who is inspired, success; if for others that take it further, hope.
I hope I and others have it within themselves to put the safety issue in a way that inspires each of us to do what we can. To agree on best practices, to honor each other and move this forward faster. Make safe milk – obvious to all – That is possible, and is necessary. Not perfection, but professionalism. Trying does count.
It is going to be bitterly cold (well maybe not by Canada or Northern Wisconsin standards, but for us wimps in the Tropics of Wisconsin and our animals, challenging enough) Thursday night. We're going to learn a lot and do what we can with what we have. I'm going to learn new things, I know it.
I'm working on my Powerpoint presentation, and it lacks bells and whistles, but it makes points. I hope that I will get help on that and it is something that is useful for others. There has already been great suggestion that we 'get together regularly' – the more time and brains we put towards safety, the better it gets. We recognize the art and beauty in simplicity, and that a system too complex or rigid is not achieving the goal. We need buy-in by the most possible. Culture change, really. The whole damn system believes our milk gets fixed – at the pasteurizer. It's on us – our responsibility – to take the safety argument away from our enemies. It is simply too much weight to drag up too steep a hill without safe milk.
Scott Trautman
"As the executive order I am signing makes clear, we are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends – giving careful consideration to benefits and costs….It means using disclosure as a tool to inform consumers of their choices, rather than restricting those choices."
-Barack Obama, The Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2011, Page A17.
I've been saying this for some time regarding raw milk:
Elaborations on 11 Great Thoughts:
#2 – Just Label It
By Steve Bemis, Esq. | September 22, 2010
This is the second of eleven in a series elaborating on my "11 Great Thoughts". First posted as a comment on The Complete Patient, they were most recently summarized in a slimmed-down version for the Fund in June.
Thought #2 states there should be some kind of consistent identification of raw milk and raw milk products coupled with standard warning language, whether basic such as current restaurant-style warnings, or more elaborate such as current California warnings.
In this, I agree with many commentators that raw milk containers should have a clear description of their content. As much as I believe that individuals should have the freedom to choose raw milk, there should be equal freedom for those who wish not to, so as to allow them to avoid drinking raw milk if that is their wish (or fear).
Further, your guests should be advised what milk you serve (the raw milk enthusiast must resist the temptation to have an uninformed "taste test," hoping for the exclamation "how wonderful this milk tastes – where did you get it anyway?"). Similarly, 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.
Labeling is one of the simplest and cheapest forms of legal defense. Every restaurant I've entered in the last ten or more years has the standard menu warning about the consumption of raw or undercooked foods increasing the risk for food borne illness, and expressing special concern for those who are young, old, sick or otherwise immune-compromised.
Ideally, such warnings would be qualified by limiting the warning to raw milk that has been contaminated; however, since it is impossible for most consumers to evaluate whether raw milk (or sushi, or steak tartare, or raw eggs) has been contaminated, I think it's best not to attempt the qualification.
Even if your view as a consumer is that such warnings are more appropriate for the chronic effects of processed industrial foods–or that raw milk can actually help some of those immune-compromised, or that it's unfair where raw milk is "singled out"–still the warnings can be legally beneficial to the farmer in the rare case in which milk has suffered a contamination and makes someone sick.
In fairness, if we look back to the basic labeling of raw milk as described above, if a guest in your home is considering whether to try it, they should be advised what the risks are, even if the risk is as remote as being struck by lightning. Nothing, including warnings, is guaranteed in this life; but think back to your first drink of raw milk–it was likely (as was mine) carefully considered and researched. Everyone should have the choice of becoming informed how their health and enjoyment of this natural food can be achieved, in balance with the risks as they may be perceived. Only with informed choice will we all be able to move forward in the pursuit of healthy foods such as raw milk.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/just-label-it-bemis.htm
As I recall, OP's milk containers had a warning label. That did not keep the company from being sued.
Warning labels give the consumer a verification that the product is in fact raw. To us at OPDC it is a marketing piece that is essential. Our consumers will not buy it if it did not say what the FDA makes us say.
Mark
Those are the kinds of questions, really accusations, increasingly made in our society's growing obsession with guarantees of predictability.
__________________________________________________
David is getting to a very important symptom of what is becoming a very sick culture. Do we understand how damaging that attitude is? Taken to its logical conclusion, it makes all men enemies. Now with unrestrained government and corporate interests aggressively selling the lie of guaranteed protection from every circumstance, and promoting the contemptible notion that we all DESERVE to get better than we give, we are indeed reaching the end point.
Heres a rock iron guarantee: If theres a profit to be made, somebody, often a lot of somebodies, will try to get a piece of it. These days the fomenting of suspicion and vengeance is a big money industry, and profiteers are swarming around it like flies on manure. We ought to clearly and strongly reject anyone who takes an interest in doing so, if not out of pure decency then for self-preservation.
A short story: When I was a boy, my younger cousin and I wandered to a vacant lot down the street where he found an old jug, threw it against something, and was struck in the head by a flying chunk of glass. My cousin panicked when the blood started flowing, and the first thing out of his mouth was Its YOUR fault! I was indignant. My fault?! He was undeterred. You should have STOPPED me! At that he ran home to his mother.
So Bill Marler, I was the older boy. Did he have a case?
Perhaps we ought to apply the Nightline interviewers paradigm to himself, and sue him for damaging society.
A few posts back Marler said that all he wants is full information. That's a white lie, for not all—neither consumers nor our beloved "experts"—agree on what information is true and right.
For the sake of satisfying those individuals who fear organisms, if they want to label raw milk as a hazardous food product then so be it as long as they include the labeling of all milk and milk products for genetically modified hormones and antibiotics etc..
Ive chosen not to focus my attention on and blame the organism; in fact I welcome the opportunity of exposure. In my mind raw milk is a food we aught to welcome rather then warn against.
Let me add to my ongoing experiences drinking raw milk and serving it to a multitude of individuals of varying ethnic backgrounds, young and old, from around the world for over fifty years. At Christmas my 11/2 year old granddaughter (Ava Grace) came to visit with her parents from Ottawa and drank raw milk with no ill effect.
Ken Conrad
You incorrectly state that Joseph Mercola is a celebrity chiropractor. He is a doctor of osteopathy, a D.O., not a chiropractor.
My error. I've corrected. Thanks.
David
I think of Joe Mercola as a tireless truth teller that speaks truth to power inspite of the crap that comes of it. He has long been an inspiration to me. There is a fakeness and fadness to a celebrity name or label .
I would call him a "celebrated doctor and medical pioneer" that heals and prevents illness.
Mark
That said, even though a warning should be enough to stop a lawsuit, many times it won't. Having warned, however, will not hurt the defense unless there are complicating factors – like, if a farmer KNEW there was contamination and sold the milk anyway.
I totally understand the criticisms that there should be warnings on foods which kill us slowly, with chronic malnutrition, nibbling us to death with a thousand small bites. Unfortunately, I don't think we're close to having those warnings. But who cares, really? Those informed consumers who decide not to try raw milk based on a warning really should not try raw milk. I would imagine most farmers would prefer it that way. The warning serves its purpose in those cases.
More raw milk for the rest of us!
My opinion stands – Just Label It.
I can't help but think of how many times I have been sick from a family party. A picnic, a wedding, a baby shower where the food was contaminated with something that made many of the guests ill. We don't sue then. We understand that it is a part of eating food that has been out for a long time, or been handled by many people. But raw milk, is so easy to blame and be afraid of. Why is that?
On a separate note, I just finished David's book (excellent). I also happen to have just met the Hebron family. I get meat, flour, and eggs from Family Farms Cooperative. Their legal troubles and all of the sagas described in the book have left me with a heavy heart. I get my milk from a very small dairy farmer close to where I live and I'm just waiting for an agent to descend upon the farm, come to my house to question me…and it all feels rather hopeless and helpless. The system feels just too big. So many people are incredibly uninformed about raw milk and processed foods in general. And big ag is just so big. They seem to win every time. *sigh*
There appears to be some interest in Humboldt Co for raw to be legally sold IF:
There is a huge sign that warns potential raw milk consumers at the point of sale
The product is kept in the back and not seen on the shelves.
The Health Depaetment holds classes for the public that warns about raw milk
I invite all of these things. I actually am Going to suggest that the Health Depaetment attend all of my Share the Secret educational outreach presentations in Humboldt. The more onerous the requirements the better. The more outrageous the better. The public sees right through this stuff. I know exactly what would happen, the Health Departement educational people would get all beat up with questions about milk allergies and lactose intolerance. They would become converts to raw milk.
I just find it fascinating.
Mark
Session 2010-2011
The following bill(s) have been scheduled for a committee or a
legislative session.
A743:
1/24/2011 2:00:00 PM Agriculture and Natural Resources
Committee Room 8, 3rd Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A743
The United States of America is not a Democracy, this may surprise some of you, but remember the Pledge of Allegiance here…..and to the Republic for which it stands. Yes, we are a Republic like it or not. A Democracy is mob rule plain and simple, 51% can control 49% with no checks or balances. Our founders of this nation wanted something that would be fair and hence a Republic was born. A Republic protects all its citizens not just those that rule. For example the Revolutionary War against England was fought by 3% of the people, financially supported by 10%, and vocally supported by 20%. If your math is the same as mine that only gives us 33% of the people involved in forming this great bastion of freedom and liberty, the United States of America.
What about the other 67%? Makes you wonder doesn't it? In a Democracy we would still be under the control of the British Crown to this day. God Bless our founders for having the foresight to establish a Republic and protect everyone's rights even the 3% that sacrificed all so that we may have what their ancestors did not, were their effort's in vain? When you have Democracy you have tyranny of the masses.
In a Republic you have private property rights and you can do as you see fit with that property, if that property is food, then you can consume it as your right. Those who falsely believe that we live in a Democracy are leading us down a very dangerous and narrow path, they are trying to tell you what you can do with your private property.
No one should be pushed around and this is what is happening now that there is an outcry for safety and a to hell with liberty attitude growing among the self proclaimed elite of the raw milk movement.
Are they wolves in sheep's clothing? Perhaps, only time will tell.
Greed and control seem to be the personal agenda being shrouded by the illusion of safety. No matter how good men are power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We have been led to believe that an out of control government can guide our future with the passage, and growing acceptance of, the Food Safety Bill S510. Do we now surrender our rights and march to the beat of a different drummer in this nation because we will ensure safety? Do we listen to those that continually tell us to OBEY? The masters always demand that the slaves obey and if you do not obey they threaten you with punishment or banishment.
Will those that become subject to these self imposed regulations be given any say as to how they will be policed. Do we blindly trust their integrity? Do they control the media and control the fate of their competition with innuendo's and threats? What they are doing, perhaps unwittingly is working to eliminate competition and gain a greater control of the market, perhaps even a monopoly. They will play on peoples emotion and claim that I can do things better and safer than what God had originally designed intelligently. Their competitors will be forced out of business with the aid of over-regulation.
Eventually this could very well lead to only having government approved food sources.
Henry Kissinger once said that he who control's the food control's the people, think about that for a minute. By surrendering the choice of your food to only approved sources you are treading dangerous waters. Now Mr. Kissinger was not very original in his statement either because it was Adolph Hitler that first used that phrase originally. Still want more control?
Being narrow minded and claiming that we need safety with no regard for liberty makes you actually part of the problem and not the solution. By surrendering your rights you have already played into the hands of the global elitist's agenda of controlling the food and ensuring a monopoly eventually. It may well destroy the small family farms of which you claim to be trying to save from demise. Now you may want to call names here and say that this is a conspiracy, well I now challenge you to prove me wrong with facts and not just rant that liberty loving people are nutcases.
Was food intended to be grown and consumed in sterile conditions? I do not think so, safety has been a tool of control and is now being used in the future to control the Raw Milk movement of these United States of America.
Let me close with one final thought from one of our founding fathers They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.
Do you know how Michael Schmidt succeeded in winning his court case, effectively legalizing cow shares in Ontario?
I'll give you a clue here — it wasn't through unabashed libertarianism. Though the argument for liberty and rights certainly played a part of his case, Michael Schmidt takes food safety very seriously. He has never made anyone sick. If he had, he probably would not have won the case. Witness Michael Hartmann's predicament.
As far as I can tell, those of us calling for food safety measures are a small minority within the raw milk movement. Most are still stuck on the "rights" argument, without any concern for the quality and safety of raw milk that is sold to the public. And believe me, there is alot of bad raw milk out there being sold as raw milk for direct human consumption, just waiting to get someone sick. Not all of it by any means, and that is why we cannot let FDA and DATCP lump the good in with the bad.
I am willing to bet that you could not emperically distinguish between good and poor quality raw milk if you had to. That is why we need to work to distinguish the quality of good raw milk, and improve the practices of the not-so-good raw milk.
Sicknesses from raw milk are weapons that will be used by TPTB against us. We do not want sicknesses from raw milk. We want a clean record. That is the only way we are going to win this battle.
Those of us calling for safety and quality checks ARE the ones at the forefront of the fight, like the American patriots you cite above.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
I heard that kind of talk for a decade, in the Tax Honesty Movement. Eventually, I proved in the Supreme Court of BC that the income tax racketeers were wrong on a crucial point in the law. Only to be told by the Judge that it did not matter = he directed me to obey the minion = one of the pests who are "eating out our substance", as they said in your Declaration of Independence
Same goes with the Campaign for REAL MILK ; the Republic was undone long ago. By FDR, if you want to draw a line in the sand
Best illustration being : quite obviously, Ham-Merica has an illegal alien ensconced in the White House, yet no-one seems to be able to do anything to oust him!
You harken back to the Republic, Andy? Then start with the FACT that the intent was for it to be a nation for their posterity … that'd be WHITE people. Care to take on that issue? I thought not
we're in bondage for a season and we have to figure out coping-strategies for survival. In Canada, we're heading towards a trade association of raw milk dairies which will have standards for membership. Then that 'brand' can go on packages. In the ad. biz. they say "the more you tell, the more you sell."… thus, wrapping more info around REAL MILK helps the particular farm, and other producers too
what the Powers-that-Be are hoping-for is a raw milk farmer framed-up for prosecution, at his limit of patience and probably financing, who decides 'this is the hill he's going to die on'. They'll gleefully accomodate him in another Ruby Ridge/Waco made -for -media psycho-drama… but it does not have to happen. The Campaign for REAL MILK is an idea whose time has come. It is unstoppable. As romantic as that Patriot rhetoric is, we won't win with the weapons of 2 centuries ago … we are winning by out-producing and out-flanking the idiots with the latest technology
Michael Schmidt's case was a win for private property rights, and his personal integrity in being a good steward gave him credibility. I do know how he won his case.
Where are all the sick and dying people out there if there is so much bad raw milk out there?
I am not claiming that producers do not need to hold themselves to a certain level of integrity, they must or else we would have chaos, and out of chaos comes control. Bad raw milk will reign in heavy handed legislation or a complete prohibition of the product itself.
If there are so many producers out there that are making people sick with poor quality milk on a regular basis maybe you should publish that list of names.
I may not be a scientist that has been trained to recognize bad milk but I can recognize bull shit. You cannot sacrifice liberty for safety. Educating the people and producers about what it takes to ensure good quality raw milk is part of the workings of the FTCLDF and WAPF. People that consume raw milk do not want swill milk and if the product is of poor quality those producers will put themselves out of business unwittingly. Taste, smell, and texture are what us consumers know when it comes to recognizing good or bad milk. I for one am willing to learn more about the scientific side of things, why are you so bent on creating a higher standard with no regards for human rights? Maybe you could create a litmus strip that we consumers can dip into the milk and when it changes to the right color we will be assured that it is safe. And this may burst your bubble but those at the forefront of the fight are the ones who drew a line in the sand and stood for their rights and those of the consumers when they have been raided time after time by an out of control agency that is hell-bent on over regulating, and they had not harmed anyone with bad milk, there were no consumer complaints filed against them for people becoming ill. Are there that many cases of people getting sick from raw milk consumption that we have to sacrifice our freedoms in order to obtain pure raw milk?
Gordon et al,
Libertarian philosophy is based on the principle of self ownership, you own your life, to deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labor the labor of your time energy and talents. Property is that part of nature which you turn to valuable use. You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others, and you may ask others to defend you. But you do not have the right to initiate force against the life, liberty and property of others. You have the right to seek leaders for yourself but you have no right to impose rulers onto others. No matter how officials are selected they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings.
Since you own your life you are responsible for your life, you do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and grow. Your action on behalf of others on behalf of you is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent. For virtue can only exist where there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action it is also the most ethical. Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not only arise from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner good people have empowered evil people throughout history. Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the market place of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act. Especially when it is easier to do nothing………..
Questioning like this was and is common at the farmer's markets. Mostly from mothers and nutritionists. The dark side is that it is so easy to say yes. Those who are doing the sales and have little farming background have no experience to rely on and are more prone to parroting the sales pitch as real data/information. It's easy to be convincing. Honesty takes more effort.
To think that anything can be 100% safe is delusional
Raw milk is not the only milk that is recalled.
cp
Thank you!
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
Resting in a bed at a hospital is associated with the third leading cause of death in America.
Life on earth is 100% fatal for each and everyone of us…. Guaranteed. That is the only guarantee you can get for sure. Where that takes you is not even guaranteed…
I take calls from consumers all the time where they ask me to give them a 100% assurance of perfect food safety. I tell them that is absolutely not possible. I just give them the testing numbers. All I can really give them is an assurance that if….they eat well ( whole, enzyme rich, biodiverse, foods with good fats etc ) and they exercise, you are improving your health and immunity and that gives you better resistance to infection and a stronger immune system. If the pasteurized guys are giving an assurance of anything that is pure BS.
Honesty builds our Raw Milk market more than anything.
Pure BS stinks and people can smell it. We live in a culture of BS with lies on every GOT MILK? sign with a pasture scape on it…people are being lied to all the time. Tell people the truth and wake their numbed out brains up.
The promise of perfect is impossible and that is even made harder by the lack of personal responsibility that almost everyone has in America. The "LAPBAND" bill board ads show this grossly.
Mark
Such labels would give the consumer an informed choice. Those who want regulated, legal and tested raw milk could go that route, while those who want exposure to pathogens in their raw milk could make that choice. Over time, we'd see which approach results in the best outcome for farmers and consumers.
One of Bob Dylan's best lines is : "you've got to serve somebody". Until you come to terms with that, you're just a child
At the moment, we are under the yoke of Edom … of which this raw milk commotion is a tiny aspect. But it won't last forever
But I will say this — It is disturbing to me that some consumers have been convinced that it is normal for raw milk to thicken in the fridge within a week. Raw milk which does this is not clean. It has a high population of pyscrotrophic (cold-loving) bacteria, which will out-compete the beneficial lactic-acid bacteria, and as a result is much more likely to make people sick.
There are raw milk producers who have those problems in their milk, and yet there is stil huge demand for their milk. Again, I don't want to name names, but I do have firsthand experience with some of this milk which has been implicated in outbreaks.
It is a big mistake for us to push for a "free-for-all" on raw milk. This is a formula for disaster. It is actually a strategy used by TPTB (DATCP, FDA, etc…) because the free-for-all will result in outbreaks as we have seen in the last year, and give them an excuse to clamp down on ALL raw milk producers regardless of their track record.
The responsible thing to do would be to require raw milk producers to go through a training and certification program in order to recieve legal help from FTCLDF. The current stance of FTCLDF, unfortunately, is to accept all cases regardless of whether the producer was responsible for illness or not. This approach is not going to serve the cause of raw milk well in the long term.
Food safety is not optional. It is obligatory. This is not to say we can or should try to guarentee 100% perfect safety as that is impossible. We just need to do everything we can to produce as safe of a product as we possibly can.
David
Of course, being an artisan cheese maker, I am already aware of the great diversity of milks. the cheeses which can be made from the different types of milk, and the vast array of flavors that can result from traditional cheese making and ripening techniques.
Today on < http://www.thebovine.wordpress.com > see the Affidavit of Ted Beals, filed yesterday in the constitutional challenge to the regulation which outlaws raw milk in British Columbia. It is the trump card
Have you told the dairies with the pyscrotrophic (sic) bacteria they have a problem? How would a course/ class prevent this vs testing the product itself?