My three-week-old kefir, post-explosion. I was just opening a container of raw milk kefir I purchased about three weeks ago, to make a smoothie with some mango and blueberries, when there was this explosion. A pop, like a small firecracker. The kefir was everywhere, on the kitchen cabinets, the counter…and on my clean shirt. Talk about a living food!
I wasn’t pleased about the mess I had to clean up, or the shirt, but I took it as a good sign, that the kefir was as actively fermenting as I would hope it would be. (I cleaned up much of the mess before it occurred to me to take the photo at left.) Needless to say, the smoothie, when I finally made it, tasted great.
I’m not sure exactly what the experience says about the longevity of this particular dairy product, though I presume it bodes well. But I did want to comment on the rights vs standards argument that came up yet again following my previous post. Andy Mastracola, in an articulate essay, argues, “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.”
I find it curious that he, and others continue to see the issue as either-or. Either we have a focus on safety or we have a focus on rights. The reality is that we don’t, as a practical matter, have nearly as many rights as we think we have, especially in the area of food.
I agree with Mastracola that we deserve the rights, that they are inherent, but the problem is that the pillars of our ruling system–the legislatures, executives, and judges–are too often failing to agree with us. Just today in Wyoming, a legislative committee turned down legislation to legalize cow shares. Now, it may be that a farmer should publicly set up a cow share and challenge the state to take him before a judge to rule on the matter. If the judge is like one in Maryland, he or she may say the state is within its rights to prohibit cowshares. If the judge is like one in Ohio, he or she may agree the farmer is within his rights.
It’s one thing to claim our rights in terms that make all the logical sense in the world, but it’s another if you’re a farmer trying to conduct business in an atmosphere where the powers that be are shouting incessantly that your product is unsafe, and trotting out “experts” who claim unique knowledge about such matters. And then you find the ripple effect–for example, suddenly it becomes more difficult to obtain product liability insurance.
Lots of raw dairy farmers have been encountering this problem. Last fall, any number received cancellation notices. One of them was Martin Ping, the executive director of Hawthorne Valley Association, a working farm and teaching organization that sells raw milk. In October, his insurer, Farm Family Insurance, notified him that as Oct. 1, 2011, the insurer would no longer cover any claims that might stem from raw milk.
I contacted Farm Family, and a spokesperson refused comment.
Ping raised objections to the company, and in December, was notified that Hawthorne Valliey’s coverage wouldn’t be discontinued as planned.
From what I’ve heard, most dairy farms that were encountering insurance problems have been able to find other companies willing to insure them.
Now, I can speculate endlessly about what the real reasons might be for all the insurance company uncertainty, but so long as the companies can site “safety concerns,” they will. And as long as the trend in raw milk illnesses is headed upwards, it’s nearly impossible to challenge them legally.
We all know that insurance companies don’t like to take on real risk–witness their withdrawal from certain hurricane-prone areas, or poor big-city areas. In the auto insurance arena, many states allow companies to penalize with extra charges drivers who have accidents and speeding tickets.
Hopefully, as raw dairy becomes a more important consumer item, the insurance companies will adjust to the marketplace. Just like I can foresee a time when we have contests for who produces the best raw milk, I can imagine insurance companies providing lower rates to dairies that have no illnesses and meet certain testing criteria, and higher rates to those that have problems.
Now, all that may be infringements on our rights, but until we get judges and legislators and governors agreeing with us, we’re skating on thin ice. And the best way to begin doing that is to accumulate evidence that raw milk is much safer than the “experts” would have the public think.
***
For a taste of what could well happen in the U.S. in the event food rights advocates begin winning some court cases, one need only look northward, to Canada. Since Michael Schmidt’s victory in an Ontario court backing his right to make milk available to a private group of cow share owners, not only has the Ontario government appealed to a higher court, but other Canadian provinces are cracking down harder than ever on raw milk providers.
Now, in British Columbia, a raw dairy farmer, with Schimidt’s involvement, is challenging the constitutionality of the province’s conviction of Alice Jongerden for being in contempt of court in connection with a cow share operation from her farm, which Schmidt is now running. He has argued that the cow share’s milk is a cosmetic, not a food.
According to Schmidt, “Because of the existing laws [the cow share] is only producing cosmetics for its share members.”
In the meantime, Schmidt predicts “that Alberta will be next on the list to face constitutional challenges by determined consumers defending their constitutional right to life, liberty and security of the person.”
All the legal documents related to the court filing in British Columbia can be found on The Bovine.
It matters not that TPTB don't agree with our rights. Those insisting on our rights may now be scorned and vilified. But Schmidt's victory only came by insisting on his rights and being willing to defend them.
Yes food safety is important, but we needn't sacrifice our rights to accomplish it. But too much of this food safety talk is just thinly veiled calls for regulation. But we've been down that road before with the PMO and others and it was disastrous. Regulation won't save us, it will only destroy us, sooner or later.
And if you don't believe in unalienable rights then you best just forget the whole raw milk thing because your masters in the federal government already said no.
So even though I still don't know much about them, I can at least pronounce the term correctly now. Bill, do you have any reason to disagree that psychrophobic is the correct spelling?
I am just curious about the apparent contradiction in the advice to chill milk down immediately after milking. Wouldn't this just encourage cold-loving bacterial growth over Lactobacilli, which favor warmer temperatures?
I think Bill mentioned Pseudomonas species as being a pyschrotrophic species found in milk. Why not just test milk routinely for this additional pathogen – especially if the current dogma is to chill milk rapidly?
Also, I admit I had to bust on him a little for having the temerity to suggest all raw milk farmers attend a class to qualify for legal representation. Who, pray tell, would teach it? Why not just make them take a written test if they were potentially interested in FTCLDF representation? Also, wouldn't a course/test be a little behind the curve if they needed legal help?
Pyscrophillic literally means "cold-loving", where pyscrotrophic merely means that they can grow in the cold (not that they neccessarily "love" the cold). Some pycroptrophic bacteria are actually mesophillic (grow best at room temperature, but can grow in the cold).
A pyscroPHOBIC organism is one which does not grow in the cold. It is the oppositive of a pycrophillic/pyscrotrophic organism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrotrophic_bacteria
Pseudomonas will only be a problem if it gets into your milk to begin with. Pseudomonas usually comes from unclean equipment, such as milk pipelines and milking equipment, bulk tanks, etc… with protein bio-film buildups.
There will always be a small amount of pyscrotrophic bacteria inevitably, the problem is when there is a very large number to begin with. The solution to high pyscrotrophic bacteria counts is to properly clean your milk harvest and storage equipment. Clean raw milk should have a shelf life of 2 weeks before it starts to spoil in the fridge. If you don't refrigerate your milk, it will clabber naturally, which is OK if that's what you want to do with it. Otherwise, if you want to keep it "sweet", it should be refrigerated.
"Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen, meaning that it exploits some break in the host defenses to initiate an infection. In fact, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the epitome of an opportunistic pathogen of humans. The bacterium almost never infects uncompromised tissues, yet there is hardly any tissue that it cannot infect if the tissue defenses are compromised in some manner."
I don't know if it is the same bacteria that Bill is referring to. I've seen it in wound and UTIs many times.
Seems it is an immune compromise issue, not a sanitary issue. So again, why or what causes the immune system to be compromised? Nutrition? Toxic environments? Over usage of pills? Some things make you go hmmmm.
Numerous kids in Australia had adverse reactions to the flu shot this year, yet our govt AND the media And the drug company didn't inform the public. You had to dig for information. Now it is occurring here. It is no big deal until it happens to your kid. Seizures can cause lasting problems, not always. The parents should be informed before they allow the shot, or any shot. Full disclosure. Seems so many birds, fish and animals are just dropping dead for no known reason?
Bill is correct in that it contaminates surfaces, just as on/in humans. Peoples bodies can be contaminated and if the immune system is not up to par, then any "pathogen" can invade and cause havoc.
It makes sense, if Pseudomonas isn't naturally in milk then how is it getting there? Equipment? Processing? Sick cows? Poor feed?
Bill, I think Kirsten and Lynne are referring to your spelling of the word, not it's meaning, though Lynne did confuse "trophic" with "phobic."
I have to admit that I do wince every time I see you misspell the word, but then I'm an ex-editor/technical writer/medical transcriptionist/spellingbee winner who really loves words. lol
The way you spell it (pyscro) causes people to pronounce it as PISScro; the correct spelling is PSYCH-ro (trophic or phobic or philic). Think of psych-iatric.
Maybe this seems nit-picky to you, but spelling it correctly will give you more authority in your pronouncements.
last week when I went to pick up my milk, the gossip came back = "some people think Gordon Watson is a double agent". I connected the dots back to grumblers I met in the so-called "DeTax" thing, who now get milk from our cowshare … dabblers / armchair quaterbacks who're long on verbiage yet whose legal theories send its practitioners to gaol, when put to the test in a real courtroom
Andy Mastrocola = your languages strikes me as the stuff we suffered in the Tax Protest Movement = lingo 2 centuries removed from today's reality ; very thin with positive alternatives. Since you sneer at me and my friends whom you call the 'elite of the raw milk movement', please tell us how much REAL MILK are you responsible for delivering this week? what are the laws in your state, concerning raw milk? Your bombast is exactly what leads to confrontation with armed meatheads in the uniforms of the state. I went through that for a decade, in the anti-abortion controversy. Compared to which the raw milk thing is just a walk in the park. If you think you're ready for dealing with the venality of tyrants … which is what's going on at high levels …. let me tell you, you're not. They love guys like you who set the stage for them to crack heads.
I am NOT saying we have to suffer in silence. Just the opposite = we have to shove back on all fronts. Which is what's happening in BC ; Mrs. Jongerden has gone on the offensive… setting the opposition back on their heels. Of her constitutional challenge, the lawyer for the Attorney General said 'looks like you may have something here"
400 households are getting REAL MILK in Vancouver BC, this week, because I started the Home on the Range cowshare in 2007. I'm convening another one – the Triple A dairy – along the lines of Chairman Michael's strategy " let 1000 cowshares bloom!"
The main way to prevail over our political adversaries is to assert our right to use and enjoy our property by delivering the good stuff.
I also realize that there is an inherent risk to living. I have educated myself and have done my own risk assessment, so to speak, and have chosen to do the things I do. I have four young children so I don't take lightly my decisions. Looking at statistics, there is a chance that I can get hit by a bus and die, or get killed in a car accident. Does that mean I should never leave my house or only travel when no one else is on the road? I'm tired of the government pretending it knows better than I do. Are there valid reasons for avoiding certain foods? Certainly. Does that mean those foods should be outlawed completely? Absolutely not!
As for the government alphabet agencies, I have become very skeptical of what they do. This is a bit of a tangent, but I read on a dog behavior blog that in the February issue of "Emerging Infectious Diseases" there is an article titled Zoonoses in the Bedroom, by B.B. Chomel and B. Sun, which provides a list of anecdotes and a few studies that link sleeping with pet dogs and cats with serious diseases. Wait, anecdotes? A CDC publication is using ANECDOTES? And the blog author has this to say: "Overall, a careful reading of the study suggests that it is heavy on anecdote and a bit light on rigorous research. For example: 'In 1985, a case of meningitis caused by P. multiocida in a 60-year old housewife living in the United Kingdom was reported. She admitted to regularly kissing the family dog.' Did she also admit to kissing the family husband? The family children? The gardener? (No wait, sorry, thats a different issue.) However, there are studies in the article that do suggest that in some cases, admittedly rare, there is a link between disease and close contact with pets. it is important for pet lovers to acknowledge that there can be risks associated with living with, and loving, our companion animals." There is a link, however, correlation is not causation. Sylvia points out the concerns with the infant-approved flu vaccine. What about the fact that the FDA approved a "bogus" (ficticious) drug? Or that the EPA and HHS are finally taking seriously the concerns about adding silicofluorides, which is technically toxic waste, to our water under the premise of "improving dental health"? It's so easy to get caught up in food safety that we can no longer see the forest for the trees.
So if those who champion food safety think that is the only way or the best way, well, I'm here to politely disagree. I have honestly gotten to the point of saying I just don't care about "food safety" as it's just getting away from so much common sense. Sure it's an extreme statement, but it's where I've arrived. We are losing our "war" on germs. Recently, an article in JAMA demonstrated that the pneumonia vaccine, Prevnar, appears to be helping to create a more virilent and less treatable strain of pneumonia. I'm no scientist, but that tells me the germs are adapting to our "weapons" in order to survive. When we get so wrapped up in science that it becomes a religion, we have a serious problem.
Well stated. Originally articulated in our Declaration of Independence, "…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are all kinds of ways of asserting those rights–via the courts, legislatures, civil disobedience, negotiation, and revolution, among others. As for the latter, there is a great story in today's New York Times about how a fruit vendor's confrontation with a regulator set off the revolution that has toppled the government of the supposedly peaceful moderate country of Tunisia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/world/africa/22sidi.html?ref=todayspaper
David
Bill, I was discussing the spelling of the word, not the meaning, although my incorrect use of the phobic ending probably threw you off that track. But after telling you were spelling it incorrectly, you still kept spelling it as "pyscrotrophic", even though your citation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrotrophic_bacteria gives the different and correct spelling. I hope you can see the difference in the spelling between pyscro and psychro.
And Goatmaid, I'm going to nitpick just a little bit with you, but with a grin. As an "ex-editor/technical writer/medical transcriptionist/spellingbee winner who really loves words", you misspelled my name as Lynne rather than Lynn. No big deal, surely, but I think it just illustrates that even those of us who try to take great care with our words don't always get it right.
But far more momentous than the spelling issue is Kirsten's question: "I am just curious about the apparent contradiction in the advice to chill milk down immediately after milking. Wouldn't this just encourage cold-loving bacterial growth over Lactobacilli, which favor warmer temperatures?" I have wondered the same thing myself. If you don't want the milk to clabber, is conventional wisdom correct in saying it is best to immediately refrigerate milk, assuming you have been preemptively hyperviligant about eliminating conditions that would encourage psychrotrophic bacteria?
The idea of "good/bad," "right/wrong" or "either/or" implies a scarcity that is not there.
I like the line attributed to Bucky Fuller, 'There is no such thing as right foot/wrong foot, only right foot/left foot. It's the right foot/left foot that is self-correcting and gets us to the port we are seeking"
Problem is, I know four Lynnes, and no Lynns, so guess which spelling stuck in my head. LOL
Yes, there is a pseudomonas species that is associated with human disease. To my knowledge, it is not widely known to be carried in milk or cheese.
The pseudomonads most commonly found in milk and cheese create lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes which raise the pH of the milk (by breaking down the casein — a natural acid — and releasing ammonia) and can also cause the milk to thicken given enough time.
Some of these enzymes from pseudomonads are heat-stable and can even survive UHT (ultra-high temperature) pasteurization of over 280F!!!!!!!!!!! Not even spores can survive those temps.
Pseudomonas flourescens will glow bright yellow under a black light. It also produces cadaverin, an aromatic compound (derived from the butterfat in milk) that smells like a dead mouse.
Pseudomonads colonize surfaces because they are aerobic — they require oxygen to grow.
That is why they can be such a problem in soft surface ripened cheeses such as brie, camembert, muenster, etc… the combination of moisture and oxygen create the perfect condition for pseudomonas to grow.
Pseudomonads are a problem in raw drinking milk because they sequester the oxygen for just long enough to allow campylobacter to survive and infect a human. They are also found in similair enviroments as listeria.
No sooner does one introduce the idea of rules, regulations, guidelines or standards, than the discussion dissolves into endless haggling over esoteric minutiae. Guidelines have not yet been formulated but the discussion is already about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I applaud your effort to shift the discussion from "rights" to "survival". It should be obvious to anyone that human beings have an inherent right to choose which foods they eat. The question is: "How do we exercise and protect that right?".
As soon as you try to introduce standards or guidlines, someone's rights get trampled. I want my milk to be full of all kinds of bacteria. If your guidelines call for the removal of this or that micro organism then my right to eat is being threatened.
I would like to share the following information from http://www.fija.com Fully Informed Jury Association
their brochure is says it all.
Who Owns Your Body?
Personal Defense
It is above question that each individual holds the
unalienable right to completely own and manage his
or her body. No one is more qualified than you to
manage your body responsibly and with dignity. The
silly assumption that government personnel, who make
as many mistakes as everyone else, can successfully
manage their bodies AND yours shows the unmatched
ignorance of government officials, especially judges
and prosecutors.
Constitutional Defense
The Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of
Rights make it clear that government has no authority
to own or manage our bodies. Individual ownership
rights extend to decisions for your body, defense of
your body, health care choices, privacy, gun possession
on your person, body decoration, alternative
medicines and supplements, vaccinations, and more.
Laws claiming government ownership of your body
demonstrate that the greatest
threat to human rights is always
from ones own government.
Jury Defense
You, as one individual, cannot do
much to effect legislation. But as a
juror, YOU can effectively defend
each persons absolute ownership
of his or her body. One person
can hang a jury by refusing to
convict. If you are called to serve
on a jury, do so! In turn, if your individual management
of your body is ever described as a crime, because the
government claims ownership of your body, wouldnt
you want a member of your jury to know that was a
fraud? You want jurors who understand that they can
hang a jury by simply stating that the prosecutor failed
to prove the government case. Or you can state no
reason for your verdict, as is your right.
Defense with Knowledge
More information on defending this absolute right
to own and manage your body, which gives you the
knowledge to defeat the lies of lawyers and judges,
is available at http://www.fija.org. You and your family
and friends will want to learn and share this priceless
knowledge about jury authority. It is the best peaceful
means to protect us all.
Liberty exists only among reasoning people who
are tolerant of human diversity. Tyranny thrives on
intolerance. Conscientious jurors defend liberty
when they refuse to convict fellow citizens maliciously
accused of crimes. Reasoning jurors stopped the
Salem Witch Trials of 1692 and freed tax protesters
after the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Juries refused to
convict under the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, during
Prohibition 1920-30, Vietnam War objectors, tax
protesters, medical marijuana users, peaceful gun
owners, and others.
The last peaceful defense of our
liberties is the jury. Writers of our
Constitution understood that power
always corrupts. The people must retain,
understand and use all the processes to
defend themselves from the greatest
threat to liberty: ones own government.
Informed grand jurors and trial jurors can
protect you from bad government laws.
There are countless inferior laws, based
on governments assumed ownership of our bodies,
that contradict the superior laws of our Constitution
and common law. With all the bad laws on the books,
it is only a matter of time before you, your family, or
friends are accused of some crime. Your last peaceful
line of defense is informed jurors who refuse to
convict under bad laws based on governments
assumed ownership of your body. You hold all rights
to completely own and be responsible for your body.
Corrupt prosecutors and judges are common. Anyone
can easily go through the process to become a lawyer
or judge. The US is overrun by them. They are common
people, who hold no more intelligence or reasoning
ability than any other common person, and often less
because of their egos and craving for more power. The
duty and design of the citizen juror is to apply reasoning
devoid of any craving for power. Lawyers and judges
literally cannot understand that concept, even
if they read these words, which is why wise
people instituted the citizen jury system.
Jurors hold the authority to render a verdict
against the demands of power-hungry
lawyers and judges.
Today, your understanding of the
authority for juror nullification is critically
important due to increasing numbers
of fear-based laws. These laws are
supported by both political parties, by
politically-appointed government judges and
prosecutors, and by United Nations leadership.
Jurors can nullify bad laws by refusing to convict
people being tried under those laws. When jurors refuse
to convict, legislators and prosecutors know the law is
NOT supported by the community. Acquittals and hung
juries are politically embarrassing to legislators, powercraving
prosecutors, bureaucrats, and most judges.
It cost many lives to establish a jury system designed
to protect our individual rights. One informed person on
each jury can regain these rights.
Defending Body Ownership Creates an Alliance of Traditional Opponents
Many favorite rights of conservatives, and other favorite rights of liberals, have been reduced to privileges,
granted or denied at whim of government officers, by the same flawed process. That process assumes
government ownership of individual bodies, and implies the willful surrender of that right by the individual.
As an adult, if you willfully surrendered your right to ingest substances of your choice, or to have a gun on
your person, which are actions of the body that damage no other person, by not expressly objecting to gun
and drug laws, you do not own your body. The government owns it.
That concept in law has voided human rights, replacing them with privileges, because uninformed jurors
have not protected the absolute right of all conservatives and liberals to own and manage their own bodies.
1-800-TEL-JURY http://www.fija.org
Over the past few weeks i have been reading the posts on this blog but never felt the need to reply to the comments or add to the discussion. It was my hope that a clear train of thought was going to emerge on various sides of argument. What I have come to understand from these comments are these simple points.
An individual should not be concerned with others or their surroundings.
No person shall offer an individual the understanding to alter ones actions against another, lest it cause an individual reason to change their actions.
We have a god given right to be free and do what we feel is best for ourselves, no matter the cost to the environment, our childrens future, our neighbors or our own well being.
Where is the humanity within these arguments. Where is the duty we have to one another, our children and our home.
It has been my greatest worry over the past two years that those who consider themselves a part of the local food movement have yet to take off the colored glasses of consumerism.
It seems many if not all on this post are trying to foster change by remaining the same. There is no open discussion just a volley of insults and reductionest fear, that I have to realize I must change in order to make change.
How this relates to a national understanding of how to produce safe raw milk?
The issue of producing safe raw milk has little to do with process. It has to do with principals.
This blog has danced around this issue for a year so I feel it needs to be said now.
I as a producer do not have the right to sicken anyone, out of my right to express my ignorance, take or leave it attitude or blanket disregard for the ability of attaining knowledge to better myself.
I as a producer do not have the right to ruin the land in which food products are produced out of my right to express my ignorance, take it or leave it attitude or blanket disregard for the ability of attaining knowledge to better the soil.
Promoting these ideas as just and constitutionally based is taking us to a future of unrepayable debt by our children and possible end of the society in which we expressed our so called freedoms.
The key to nutirent dense food, economically viable producers a healthy and prosperous population is not through individual rights but copperation with the natural processes of our soil and animals we depend on and compassion with one another towards a common goal.
The only reason i have worked so long and so hard on a better understanding of safety of raw milk is to involve all of the principals to this end, not just a reductionest view based on consumerism.
Safe raw milk to the best of our ability is actually a guide to replenishing that what was taken over the last 100 years out of our soils, animals and our relationship to them and each other.
The competetion for ideas on this site to me is just a continuation of consumerism and must end if we are to change that we feel must be changed, if we as a society are ever going to mature and progress.
The local food movment is young, our country as a whole is young. As age finds in our lives we must begin to see that a challange to our beliefs are a blessing not a curse.
We as a people have been compromised by those who see it fit to take control for their own puposes. Fighting fire with fire will not resolve the core issues raw milk an local food are challanging. We are entering a significant period change in how we see ourselves in relation to our environment, our communities and ourselves.We are begining to see things that we could not imagine by simply giving back to a system we have only taken from for centuries.
Captialism has it benefits if only to better understand what is economically viable, even if those understanding were not the intended purpose.
We can partake in what has always been, or we can decide to use the knowledge found by mistake and use it for the benefit of everyone for generations to come.
Raw milk standards are only a very small part of the puzzle to the gauge to get us back to where we think we are now.
It is my hope they will be taken as such and calm the hairs on the backs of those who see it as more of the same.
Tim Wightman
"I have honestly gotten to the point of saying I just don't care about "food safety"
Well, if that attitude is widespread as it seems to be on this blog, it would explain the steady increase in raw milk illnesses and outbreaks since 2005: a dangerous combination of increased sales and increased apathy about safety and quality. BTW, do you sell raw milk to children? If so, do you alert parents about your practices and attitude toward food safety?
More than 60% of the illnesses and almost all the hospitalizations from raw milk are among children. Where do their rights fit into this discussion? This question distinguishes raw milk from other rights like tobacco and cigarettes.
Where in the world do you get the idea that I sell raw milk? I am a consumer, not a producer. I thought I made that pretty clear in my post. So no, I don't sell raw milk to children. All my friends and family know that we drink raw milk. I do not serve it to them without asking them to allow them the opportunity to decline, which they have never done yet.
I said the statement was extreme, but I left it anyway. I am concerned about the quality of my food and the manner in which it's produced. That's why I have chosen to buy food the way I do – directly from the farmers as much as possible. I am not concerned with "food safety" in the respect that it's creating ridiculous regulation. I believe someone posted here about S510 that some green crops would not be allowed to be grown if livestock is raised on the property, or something to that effect. *That* is ridiculous regulation and that is why I've gotten beyond caring about "food safety".
As I said in my first post, there is an inherent risk to living. I have done my own risk assessment and don't need the government making decisions for me and my family. And don't worry, I doubt that my "attitude" is widespread.
Then the poster went on to explain her/his reasoning……with the following towards the end of the post……
"I have honestly gotten to the point of saying I just don't care about "food safety"
Lykke said; "Well, if that attitude is widespread as it seems to be on this blog,"
Lykke, you neglected to post the 1st sentence of that post, so your statement has taken it out of context. Your words do nothing but mislead readers. Shame on you.
You are presumptuous to make such a statement. Again,who on this board doesn't care about food safety?
The rights of children? IF the govt was so concerned; why is it allowing the contaminated foods (added chemicals/processed garbage), et al to be fed to kids? Why is it allowing the kids to be over medicated? People feed their kids fast foods, which contain numerous amounts of added chemicals, toxins, not to neglect, the chemicals leached from containers, the list is a long one. Since you brought up kids rights, who is to say what the correct/right religion is? How about what they wear? How they speak? How about what parents teach their kids? How about prohibiting sports-they are dangerous, as are cars, amusement park rides…..
Cigarettes have over 599 additives in them, yet most believe they are smoking plain tobacco. Legally poisoning people.
How about the chemicals added to water?
Among the many is fluoride: It has been known for many years that babies/children exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis, other tissues in the body are also affected.
Now continuing along that thought, do you really think all it does is discolor teeth? Of course not!!! It an endocrine disrupter. It reduces the function of the thyroid gland. What is one of the top 100 RX'd drugs in America? Synthroid! It displaces iodine in the thyroid, as does chlorine and bromine. The thyroid is an important organ. Without adequate amounts of iodine in the thyroid, it also displaces calcium uptake, et al for strong bones and you come up with osteoprosis (Brittle bones) Have you noticed bow-legs are more common in kids today? Could it be ricketts? Some things make you go hmmmm. Osteoporosis is epidemic in America.
http://www.drugs.com/top200.html
( I did not check my spelling)
I'm on the fence in terms of standards, and so I really see a lot of good sense as each side makes it's case. I also see some blind spots in both arguments.
The "rights" folks, I agree with you wholeheartedly, you have the right to make your own choices.
But… once your choices begin to impact me and my liberties, my rights, and my choices…. I would argue that I have say in the matter.
I'm not always clear on where the "right's" folks are drawing the line.
Tim, David, Scott – they have the right to dream up any standard they want. That's their freedom and liberty. They can talk about it, advertise it, use it against me competitively in the marketplace….
But if they intend to IMPOSE it upon me – there I draw the line. I'm with the right's folks on this.
I hear some "right's" folks crossing that line, though.
They wan to impose their will on the "standards" folks when they say, "if you make standards, there is a slippery slope and the government will come along and co opt them"
Ok, right's people. That's true. The government MIGHT come along and do that. But it's not a fair argument that gives you the power to demand what Tim or Scott should do.
Why? Because it's the same argument that anti raw milk folks are using to wield power over you when they say, "but some innocent bystander MIGHT get sick".
Do we agree that we do not get to impose our will over someone else because something MIGHT happen?
Now for the "standards" people – the irrational part of your argument, IMHO, is that you are trying to solve your problem using the very strategy that created your problem in the first place.
You want to sell raw milk. The reason you are having problems selling raw milk is because someone came along before you and set milk safety standards. THEIR standards say milk should not be consumed raw and you disagree.
It was the setting of obligatory standards that made this problem. Yet, as I read here, it seems clear that some who want standards are, in fact, pushing for them to be mandatory.
Mark McAfee, you made a post very recently and you listed what you felt were simple standards that you had come up with that you seemed to truly believe that no one in their right mind would disagree with. Do you remember?
I'm certain that the folks who mandated cooked milk thought the same thing about their decision.
So, as good as you believed your standards were, I'd just like to point to a couple that might not make sense outside of your
world and reality –
For folks who live in states that are free of TB and brucellosis, those requirements may be superfluous. They might have a reasonable argument against that suggestion.
As for vaccinating animals, consumers and producers who have lost faith in FDA's ability to assess the safety of vaccines may be reasonable when they resist that standard.
I'm not trying to pick on you, Mark. I'm just trying to show how we all live in our own bubbles of reality, and have a hard time seeing the world from the outside of that bubble. It does not matter how reasonable we all think our standards are, most likely they will not be reasonable to someone else, for VERY reasonable reasons.
Look at the pasteurizing fanatics and you see it clearly. Why, oh why, do WE fancy that we are not subject to the same inability to know what is best for everyone else, everywhere, in every circumstance?
To me, the answer is so simple. Folks need to define what they want a little better here, no matter which side you are on.
Where is your line in the sand? Unless everyone gets that clarified, this circular argument will go on forever.
As for the children, babies are the single segment of our society that currently have unfettered, mostly unregulated, access to raw milk. Once that source is closed to them, I propose that children be recognized as the property of their parents, not the property of the governemnt, and, as such, the parents would be responsible for feeding their children in whatever manner they find to be the best manner.
If any parents felt the need to consult you or the government about how to best care for their children, they would be free to do so.
Blame the medical profession and their systematic assault on childrens digestive, endocrine and immune systems.
There is no increase in my part of the world where people continue to drink raw milk the same as they always have or rather more so then they ever have.
Ken Conrad
Singling out raw milk for food safety reasons based on current belief and attitude is counterproductive however and will not solve the problem of illness. Results will come from the bottom up if we respect each individuals freedom to chose.
Ken Conrad
"An individual should not be concerned with others or their surroundings.
No person shall offer an individual the understanding to alter ones actions against another, lest it cause an individual reason to change their actions.
We have a god given right to be free and do what we feel is best for ourselves, no matter the cost to the environment, our childrens future, our neighbors or our own well being."
Wow!!! Either you are with me, or you don't care about anyone or anything????? I don't recall any of the freedom rights folks ever say they don't care about others or how they produce their raw milk, (quite the contrary) and/or that they aren't willing to learn better production practices. A special label or group does not ensure safety or quality, and it never will.
Yes, I lean more toward the freedom category. Do you really think I don't care then? I've dedicated my life to learning better ways to produce 100% grass fed organic milk and sharing that knowledge with farmers nationwide. I answer countless phone calls and give farm tours, for free, to help anyone I can, yet, because I may have reservations about some raw milk entity deciding my future, I don't care about the world around me, or our childrens future?
I know, they are "just standards", but there have been many insinuations that it would be much more than that, and when there is $$$$ to be made……..
I get suspicious when someone/group wants to determine the way to produce raw milk. Especially, when it is someone that can't even produce grass fed milk and has publicly stated it is impossible to balance a ration with grass only, and is hung up on numbers on a piece of paper "balanced ration" and one production method (Midwest Bio Ag). I'm not against Bio Ag, they do a lot of good, but it is a very expensive way to build fertility. There are many ways to produce high quality raw milk. BTW, mine lasted 6 weeks in a friend's fridge. Does that count?
I don't want to inject some lab concoction (vaccine), into my cows because someone that has no understanding of nutrition/health, say it should be so. Some on here propose that should be mandatory. Nutrition IS a key to health, vaccines do not create health, and it's more likely they actually cause disease.
I agree with sharing info with farmers about the importance of nutrition as related to health, and other clean production methods, but in coercive means, then no.
Thinking back to your farm in WI several years ago, Tim. Are you positive, that with some "seal of approval" everything would have been fine?
Cheyenne
lawyer Guy McDannold, in Victoria BC will be very happy with the actuarial tables used by the company which quit insuring Whole Foods to sell raw milk. You say there are no such things? Then whence comes your bald assertion about
" …the steady increase in raw milk illnesses and outbreaks since 2005: a dangerous combination of increased sales and increased apathy about safety and quality." ?
We get a new inquiry literally every day from people who want REAL MILK from our cowshare. that will be the same all over N America. Logically, as the Campaign for REAL MILK grows exponentially – which is what it IS doing – … a few more instances of illness, are proportionately LESS than they ever were.
Maybe Mr Marler's lawfirm can help you out : I put the same query to them, months ago = still no response.
educate yourself : read the Affidavit of Theodore Beals filed in the Jongerden constitutional challenge in British Columbia ; at < www,thebovine.wordpress.com > When an expert of his calibre says the risk of harm from raw milk is "miniscule", in this cardgame, "you've got a handfull of nothin'". In BC, thus in all of Canada, we have won the point. It's only a mopping-up exercise from here on in
about Hawthorne Valley and Farmer's Insurance.
I LOVE Hawthorne Valley Farm. We shop there for Kvass and other items, even when we have our own animals in milk and don't need to buy dairy products.
But we are in the same state, have the same insurance, and are quite unhappy to learn that Farm Family refused to provide us with raw milk coverage but is doing for others.
Dare I say it… this is an issue of being bigger wins – once again?
To quote Fletch……
I R PISSED
I just want to say that I enjoyed reading your post. Most definitely, we can learn something about ourselves and our arguments by someone who isn't as invested in the issue as we are.
I would, however, like give my 2 cents about a statement you made, especially since I am one of those who have been a vocal "rights" person.
"Ok, right's people. That's true. The government MIGHT come along and do that. But it's not a fair argument that gives you the power to demand what Tim or Scott should do."
The evidence we have thus far, and true it is only "circumstantial" evidence, points to the fact that these National Standards are being written TO BE co-opted by the government.
*Tim Wightman, the lead author of the Standards, has admitted in an e-mail and on this blog that he consulted Codex in writing the National Standards.
*New Zealand has already written the Codex standards for raw milk production, and did so at least a few years ago.
*Tim Wightman must have known this when he consulted Codex in writing his Standards.
*It is naive to think that NO Codex standards are being used in Tim's National Standards.
*S510 is understood to be an implementation of Codex in the U.S., and it authorizes the Secretary to create 3rd party certifiers.
*The Weston Price Foundation has already been named as a possible candidate to be a 3rd party certifier for raw milk. Please note this quote from Neville McNaughton in the Dairy Business Innovation Center's November 2010 newsletter (p. 4) regarding raw milk and raw milk cheese:
"We need clear production and processing guidelines for producers and processors based on scientific fact. Raw milk and raw milk cheese producers need a common voice to self-regulate and promote our industry. We need a self-certifying body that is credible. This body should certify both the protocols and the people. It should be held accountable for the quality of their certifications. Let us hope that an organization such as the Weston A. Price Foundation will step up to the plate and fill this role. It is long overdue."
http://www.dbicusa.org/documents/Nov10%20DBIC%20newsletter.pdf
*Tim Wightman is head of the Farm-To-Consumer Foundation, which is tied in with the Weston Price Foundation.
*I think it's a fair assessment to believe that any group that has Standards written when the government decides to implement S510/Codex will have the best shot of having their Standards canonized into federal law, especially if those Standards already follow Codex.
As I see it, these "National Standards" are being drafted in secret, by a small, exclusionary group, but one that has extraordinary ties and is surrounded by "coincidences". I hope you can appreciate my skepticism, Smy.
Amen to that, and also to giving back to our environment and to learning from one another.
I was interested in Bill's observation that bacteria that can withstand cold conditions go on to create a good environment for pathogens. MW gave us a link to an article about this same phenomenon. This makes me think that the rapid chilling that is practiced on milk (often at great expense for equipment and water) is at odds with producing safe raw milk. Sure, it needs to be refrigerated, but perhaps a slower chilling process more appropriate, since it favors Lactobacillus culture over that of Pseudomonas.
Yes. I am very disturbed at the way this has played out.
I see that the the yellow brick road has been laid, and some standards folks are off to see the wizard.
I can't argue this unfortunate case based on liberty and freedoms, however, because it is certainly their right to consult the wizard. Do I have sour grapes about the fact that it is with my help and support that they are staged to have better access to this wizard? Um, Yeah. Will I be enraged if I find that what they've been up to in secret, is an entirely different agenda than what they publicly portray? Yep.
Many of your posts have helped shed some light of scrutiny on both of those organizations. I have not renewed memberships, and I no longer promote them to others, as I once did.
I am quietly waiting for the "great unveiling". If there has been a breech of ethics, it will be very apparent when these standards are finally revealed.
So my point is this – lets look at from the worst case scenario: since circumstances have set WPF and FTCLDF up to grab power, let's say you are correct, that this chance has clouded their judgement. Lets assume these standards are unveiled and they align perfectly with codex.
Lets say these groups do become a third party certifiers.
Does that change me, or my rights or my liberties one iota? No. I will still be a raw milk activist. I will not adopt any standard that I reasonable disagree with. Instead of fighting the FDA and the states, I will just have another enemy – a third party certifier, against me.
Other than that, nothing will have changed.
I'm still be drinking my milk.
I'm still be doing what I can to help others have access to the kind of milk that they want.
Actually, chilling milk more slowly will negatively effect the bacterial profile. Either you chill milk or you don't.
The temperature range of 40-50F is the most conducive to the growth of cold-loving organisms like pseudomonas. Enzymes that degrade butterfat (lipases) are also most active in that temperature range.
For overnight storage of milk that is going to be turned into cheese the next day (or another cultured acidified food), 50-55F is the ideal storage temperature. Milk should not be stored at 50-55F for more than 24 hours
However, if you are chilling milk because you want it to stay "sweet", it should be chilled as quickly as possible. The less time the milk spends in the 40-50F range, the better.
it was your attitude of resenting success, we saw manifested on the RawDairy at Yahoo forum, for a few years. I called her "Idaho's Dairy Princess for 1966". She was an old hippie with one mini-Jersey, selling raw milk for $2 per gallon, who never missed a chance to kvetch at me for "gouging" when we started out at $12 per gallon, in 2007
She was a textbook example of how 'pittance farming' is the result of perverted pride. A couple of years later, she was moping loudly that she wanted a cream separator, but didn't have the $$. Because she'd been giving herself away for too litle : that's why she had no capital with which to grow, thus, serve more people.
The invisible hand in a genuinely free market is the best governor of price. If 60,000 people in California are willing to pay what Orgasmic Pastures requires to serve them with the good stuff, then that's what it's really worth. Do you mind if farmers make the same amount of $$ as plumbers, or mechanics etc? . Has Mark McAffee ever taken a dollar out of your pocket, by fraud?
How much REAL MILK did you deliver this week, to how many people, at what price?
while I've been involved in the Campaign for REAL MILK, the price of silver has gone from $4 per ounce, to $30. That matters because your US dollar is predicated on silver… regardless of how Barry Suetoro & Co flood the country with more fantasy $$, the free market will reflect the price level at which people will go to work and produce real goods + services. A year from now, when REAL MILK is $40 per gallon, and we have some on hand because we're still in business, because we charged the correct price, what will you have to offer in exchange?