Participants in the Raw Milk Freedom Riders caravan stop at the Maryland state line, showing raw milk they had just purchased in Pennsylvania. The scene at the Maryland-Pennsylvania border was almost surrealistic. There, in a beautifully sunny pastoral countryside, under a sign welcoming people to Maryland, about 50 people posed, some holding bottles of milk, others cheering. They were just about to transport their Pennsylvania raw milk into Maryland, in defiance of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation prohibiting “interstate commerce” in raw milk.
This was a highlight of a long-planned protest of the FDA’s heavy-handed clampdown on raw milk, organized by leaders of a Maryland food club whose club was infiltrated by FDA agents during 2010 and 2011 as part of an investigation and court suit against Pennsylvania Amish farmer Daniel Allgyer. The protest leaders, Karine Bouis-Towe and Liz Reitzig, called the 14-vehicle transport caravan the Raw Milk Freedom Riders, and the demonstration that followed, with more than 200 attendees, in front of FDA Silver Spring headquarters the Raw Milk and Cookies Rally. (And both the milk and home-baked cookies at the event were wonderfully delicious.)
Lo and behold, the event elicited something diifferent from the usually sullen or threatening messages common from the FDA– indeed, reactions that could actually be interpreted as conciliatory, at least in the context of FDA communications.
For one thing, Reitzig announced at the rally, she was contacted by two FDA officials on Friday and Monday, who said they wanted to encourage some sort of followup communication about the charge that the FDA has “criminalized” consumers transporting raw milk from one state to another (typically, from a state that allows raw milk sales, like Pennsylvania, to one that prohibits such sales, like Maryland). The FDA has in the past said it considers any transport of raw milk across state lines to be a violation of interstate commerce and that while it hasn’t enforced the regulation on individual consumers, it reserved the right to do so.
Moreover, the agency tacitly acknowledged that it understands that some consumers may prefer raw milk. “We urge consumers who purchase raw milk to understand the health risks involved. While raw milk puts all consumers at risk, the elderly, immune-compromised people, children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to the hazards of raw milk consumption. FDA’s consumer education will continue to focus on helping consumers understand the risk to these populations.”
In government-speak, the FDA is implying a shift in emphasis to education from enforcement. Unfortunately, the FDA is notorious for not speaking in plain English about its intentions, forcing people to try to infer possible shifts in policy.
If any FDA staffers were at the demonstration outside its Silver Spring headquarters (overseen by 22 law enforcement officers of various sorts), they heard an earful from a range of pro-raw-milk speakers, including Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm, Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., Denise Dixon of Morningland Dairy, Liz Reitzig, and yours truly. “We are tired of being termed criminals over our milk,” said Reitzig. “We want to talk to the FDA about de-criminalizing raw milk, or we will do more of this.” She spoke of regional rallies in front of local FDA offices in other parts of the country.
It’s certainly tempting to perhaps over-analyze the FDA’s response to today’s activities, which had been fully broadcast well in advance. In terms of policy, announcing a hands-off approach to individual consumers transporting raw milk from one state to another isn’t a huge deal. It’s the private buying clubs that likely account for a much larger volume of raw milk moving across state lines, and those aren’t covered by the FDA’s shift.
But what may be significant is that the FDA actually announced a shift toward reduced enforcement of the raw milk prohibition. That’s a first that I’m aware of since the interstate ban went into effect in 1987. So the announcement may reflect more a gesture of conciliation, acknowledging the sincerity of the many who backed today’s protest. If it’s a gesture that leads to some kind of constructive dialog, then that’s positive.
***
“Some days I have a bad feeling and some days I have a good feeling,” Ontario dairy farmer Michael Schmidt said of his mood as his hunger strike bears on. He is on day 31 of the hunger strike, but the simple fact that he was able to travel to the Raw Milk and Cookies rally in Maryland suggested Schmidt was having a better day.
Michael Schmidt being interviewed at the rally outside FDA headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. He reported that a growing number of members of Ontario’s parliament are lobbying the province’s premier, Dalton McGuinty, to meet with Schmidt. He has said he will give up the hunger strike if the premier will meet with him and launch a discussion about how to make safe raw milk available to Ontario citizens.
To those who have pleaded with him to end his hunger strike out of fear the food rights movement will lose its most important leader, Schmidt stated: “The movement can only be strong if there are 1,000 leaders, not one leader. You have to become a leader of your own body.”
He intends to press on, he said. “It’s either dialog or death.”
 |
Based on the CDC's own survey, the average number of people drinking raw milk in this 2006-2007 sampling was 3.0% of the population, ranging from 2.3% in Minnesota to 3.8% in Georgia.
As well, Dr. Ted Beals used this data and information concerning illness in a recent presentation, demonstrating a truly tiny illness rate from raw milk at http://tinyurl.com/44dlglm – the FDA is still blowing smoke in their new "education" emphasis (if, indeed, that is what it is).
I'm really grateful to all the people who made this event happen and it was heartening to see that Michael Schmidt was able to make it. I wish he would switch to a raw milk fast and challenge those who claim highly processed pasteurized/homogenized commercial dead milk is just as nutritious to take on a commercial milk fast if they really believe what they are saying. I doubt that anyone could last very long on a commercial dead milk fast.
No login is necessary:
http://www.dairyherd.com/dairy-news/NMPF-urges-FDA-to-defend-laws-against-raw-milk-sales-133021288.html?ref=288
Thank you for this welcome news. I listened to Natural News Radio broadcast – wanted to be there and glad that nobody was arrested. But I agree with Steve that FDA's message is still twisted and cynical. There was a clear message that "We are the deciders, we are in control here, we issue the facts".
But they don't recognize the facts, they don't have control, and their decisions are clearly in favor of unhealthy results.
Saying you have no intent to arrest consumers crossing state lines is merely a current policy statement. It doesn't mean they won't in the future. Stating they would no longer harass farmers or buyers clubs would be different. But they didn't mention that.
I am hopeful that Liz can have a dialogue with the FDA. That is progress!
Heartfelt thanks to all who were there today. You rock my world, and keep it spinning! Michael Schmidt – glad you are doing so well!
-Blair
There is no question that the folks at the FDA continue to speak a different language, and cherry pick data (when they do even choose to use data). I am under no illusions about the scope of any potential change in FDA thinking about raw dairy. The effort at outreach and the issuance of a somewhat conciliatory press release were symbolic changes in the FDA's usual stonewalling on the raw dairy issue. I like to be an optimist–once people with vastly different views begin speaking with each other, you never know what might occur.
David
This is a bit off topic, but I told a friend I would help her with this, so here goes. My friend is a First LEGO League coach (yes, the building blocks) and each team has a science challenge in addition to building a robot with LEGOs. In a warped twist on, "You teach, you teach, you teach!" the children this year are to investigate pathogens in raw milk and propose solutions to eliminate them. The starting premise is that raw milk is hazardous and must be cleaned up, not that with good herd management we can have a healthful product form the start. I have loads of information that I can share with the kids, but, alas, I lack alphabet soup after my name. Apparently the judges are wowed by credentials. Would anyone here be willing to talk to the club (they are in South Jersey) in person, on Skype or via e-mail? They are pretty young (4th-8th grade), so it would need to be scientifically accurate, but not too scholarly. I am going to offer to go in and make two batches of applesauce with the kids. For one I will start with fresh, wholesome apples, fresh pressed cider and a clean blender. For the other I will use rotten apples, cider vinegar (it's just old cider!) and a filthy blender. We can discuss how to "clean up" the second batch to make it as wholesome as the first. My guess is that they won't buy it!
Thanks for any help that you might be able to give. I did let my friend know that a lot of you would probably be in TX next week for WAPF and might not be available.
Gail
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Foodborne Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) Population Survey Atlas of Exposures. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006-2007.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/surveys/FNExpAtl03022011.pdf
Food _____ consumed in the last 7 days (10 state survey):
unpasteurized (raw milk): 3%
pasteurized milk (fluid): 75.4%
Examples of other fresh and processed foods:
Fresh eggs: 75.4%
Fresh tomatoes: 59.6%
Chicken (cooked in home): 64.9%
Fresh strawberries: 45%
Iceberg lettuce: 45.7%
Deli meats: 40.6%
Hot dogs: 31.8%
Bagged salad: 39.1%
Hot dogs: 31.8%
Alfalfa sprouts: 4.4%
Bottom line – this survey shows that raw milk consumption is among the most infrequently consumed food by respondents at the 10 FoodNet sites.
MW
I don't think anyone who advocates for raw milk would suggest it is anywhere near as popular as the foods you listed, especially pasteurized milk. The difference between <1% and 3%+ is significant, though. 1% represents less than 3 million people and 3%+ represents 9 or 10 million. The latter number is a fairly significant number of individuals affected by government policy that seeks to restrict access. The FDA's announcement yesterday was encouraging in part because it suggests some change in the restrictive approach.
David
Note that the 3% number is not only consumers. Farm families and dairy workers who drink raw milk from the bulk tank (including CAFOs) are included. For this reason, the survey numbers are not necessarily reflective of consumers seeking access to raw milk (certainly not to the point of putting a hard number on it as you have done suggesting these are all raw milk consumers).
I'm not necessarily agreeing with this point, but 3% is tiny relative to making a major change in food safety policy.
Although probably not a significant difference, it's also interesting that the state with the largest raw milk dairy in the country (CA) had fewer people respond that they drank raw milk in the last 7 days compared with states that are more restrictive like Georgia and Tennessee.
MW
How many families that readily drink raw milk also partake in eating deli meats, hot dogs, and iceburg and bagged lettuce? Most everyone that I know that feeds their family raw milk is pretty particular about what they eat….why would you feed your family nutrient dense food like raw milk and then feed them junk? I can understand occassional junk, but according to the survey, over 1/3 of those surveyed ate highly processed food within the last week, alfalfa sprouts and raw milk are near the bottom which tells me that the demographic was aimed at typical suburbanesque commodity style shoppers and the raw milk drinkers captured in the survey were probably typical rural farm families who cant afford to be too particular when it comes to spending their food dollars. But that is just me speculating…..
Your speculation is intriguing. And, I wonder if it might explain the state-by-state results, which are odd when you consider the diverse laws pertaining to raw milk sales in these states. I hope not to clog David's blog, but this discussion seems relevant to the use of these statistics by raw milk proponents and opponents.
Drank raw milk in the last 7 days:
CA: 3%
CO: 2.4%
CT: 2.7%
GA: 3.8%
MD: 3.0%
MN: 2.3%
NM: 3.4%
NY: 3.5%
OR: 2.8%
TN: 3.5%
Average: 3.0%
How representative is this survey of raw milk consumers seeking access?
It would be nice to see a follow-up CDC analysis with more details about the population. Or, better yet, a survey truly designed to measure raw milk consumption that takes into account the demographics you describe.
MW
Where is all the raw milk coming from??
When consumers come to our farmers market stand. No one knows what raw milk is. They think whole milk is raw milk. They think homogenization is heat treatment. They think that organic is raw. We need to see the poll questionnaire.
What makes anyone of us think that the CDC knows anything. They do not even include the 50 deaths from the 1985 Jalisco pasteurized cheese incident in their pasteurized dairy product deaths number. The FDA and CDC are not science based. They are political organizations with an agenda. Plain and simple.
The moral to this story. Only hire cops that drink raw milk. They are the ones with a sense of humor. The DHS officers that worked for the FDA really had an attitude. They would not even speak at all. They were short and had bad attitudes. Obviously need some raw milk badly.
Appreciate your boots on the ground perspective. The numbers are likely much lower when the CAFOs are taken out of the statistics.
MW
No question we need more research on the demographics and consumption habits of raw milk consumers. I suspect the FDA wasn't even aware the CDC was including raw milk in its food survey, and wouldn't have approved had its officials known. The survey's results are tantalizing as much for what they don't tell us as for what they do say.
The problem from the FDA's position is that more such data amounts as much to marketing data as anything else, and thus can be used by producers to more effectively target outreach and other sales efforts. The FDA, in its current mindset, doesn't want any of that, any more than it wants to even acknowledge the highly encouraging data about raw milk health benefits that have come out of Europe in recent years.
David
Would you agree that the CDC statistics are nearly worthless given the problems with disclosure related to the population they surveyed? As such, WAPF and FTCLDF should not keep using these statistics to describe the number of raw milk consumers. We should promote efforts to conduct a better study. These organizations reduce credibility by manipulating statistics without acknowledging the limits of this CDC data.
MW
Michael… Suicide is not a statement that is healthy or a testament to strength. Suicide is a person silently screaming for help. I have asked you to stop your fast. You have set a near impossible goal to be achieved as a criteria to stop your fast. You have now entered the period when your body will be harmed. Damage that can not be repaired.
When you fight , you always fight from a position of strength. To see you starving and damaging yourself is not strength. My heart is torn. Part of my soul wants to support you and not say these things. But my rational mind must say these things.
So many love you. Please claim victory. Stop the Fast now. There is so much teaching to do. A Michael Schmidt with brain and organ damage is not the Michael that we all need. Please do not proceed into tragedy. It proves nothing. It gives your enemy everything.
These words are not words of lack of support. They are words from a friend begging you to rationally consider that the enemy could careless if you kill yourself. It saves them a whole lot of sweat. Makes their problems go away. All they have to do is wait.
Threatening your enemy with your own suicide in the heat of battle…. Please please does that make any sense at all ???? You have said this is War. We need all soldiers well.
Love Mark & Blaine McAfee.
"British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to bend, however. The prisoners drank small amounts of water, but refused food altogether. Sands died from starvation in a prison hospital on the 66th day of the strike. Thatcher remained steadfast and called Sands a criminal and his death a suicide. Nine more prisoners died from starvation after Sands. "
This is what I fear the govt will say about Michael and any other person that opposes tptb. By not granting Michael 15 minutes of their time shows their lack of concern not only for a citizens life, also for many citizens views and needs. The American govt is no different.
"statistics are nearly worthless given the problems with disclosure related to the population they surveyed? "
Isn't this true of all stats? Just like unemployment stats…no true estimate/count is taken.
If you estimated that a person may drink 1 gal of milk a week and counted the gallons per week that Claravale and Op sell…that may give a rough estimate of consumed raw cows milk from those 2 producers alone. As for the Heardshares; depending on the breed, nutrition, time of year, how many head, could give another rough estimate of the amount of raw milk consumed. It is probably more than the govt wants to admit.
http://milk.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000806
http://www.sodahead.com/living/have-you-or-do-you-drink-raw-milk/question-2053953/
I admit the CDC data leave a lot to be desired. I am reminded, though, that just a few years ago, when I was writing "The Raw Milk Revolution", the WAPF was estimating between 500,000 and 1 million raw milk drinkers, with a sense the number was growing quickly. The estimate was a sincere effort to estimate, but it was based on nothing more than instinct. Then the CDC data were spotted, and suddenly there was something more than an instinctive estimate–this was data based on serious telephone surveys. Likely deficient in important ways, but much more credible than anything else out there.
This problem of cherry picking data is common in serious political battles. Each side tries to use various data primarily to back up its own position, rather than to educate.
But it definitely makes sense to push for more and better studies. Having more complete data makes cherry picking more difficult.
David
see the story on < http://www.thebovine.wordpress.com >
about the way politicians get educated on issues such as REAL MILK, "it's not that they won't come around, it's that they're slow to come around"
"Most producers (88.7%) reported that they or their families consume unpasteurized milk from their bulk milk tanks and 36.3% indicated that consumers should be able to purchase unpasteurized milk in Canada."
Of COURSE producers and their families drink bulk tank milk… just about every dairy farmer that I know does. So, doesn't that mean that the CDC numbers are WAY off?
Congratulations, Michael! Way to go!