It’s not a great time to be trying to convince raw milk advocates–farmers and consumers alike–about the importance of a heightened emphasis on safety. Not at a time when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which frequently argues that raw milk can’t be produced safely in any event, is doing undercover investigations poking around in people’s garages and back yards, and filing for a permanent injunction against an Amish farmer. Or when public health and agriculture officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin continue to try to make life miserable for raw dairy producers and consumers.
But I made the effort, nonetheless, at the Raw Milk Symposium in Bloomington, MN, Saturday, as part of a panel discussion. My argument wasn’t that we have a sudden public health crisis around raw milk, but rather that we have a perception problem–a perception in certain segments of the public that farmers and consumers alike are insensitive to cases of illness from raw milk.
Catherine Shanahan, a speaker at Raw Milk Symposium.Why should we care about a perception problem? It’s easy, after all, to say that the perception is fostered by those who adamantly oppose raw milk. Regardless of the cause, though, there are at least three reasons why we should care about this perception problem:
1. Because we are caring people, who don’t want to see people get sick.
2. Because farmers whose milk make people sick run the risk of losing their farms.
3. And more recently, it’s become apparent that this perception problem increases the risks of loss on the legal side, which is where much of the action is taking place these days. If the opponents of raw milk are able to bring up specific safety concerns in court cases involving raw milk, then judges are very likely to react to the regulator fear mongering. It’s happened already in several cases, most recently the Morningland Dairy case in Missouri. Such cases have emboldened the regulators, in my view.
A number of attendees suggested that, because the most serious illnesses appear to have occurred with first-time drinkers, those just starting out should begin slowly. “If it’s your first time, sip it in small quantities, at room temperature,” Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, advised. A physician, Catherine Shanahan, suggested that prospective users take probiotic capsules and eat fermented foods before launching into consuming raw milk.
Beyond those suggestions, I encouraged a more formal and organized effort to take the offensive, such as a raw milk association to establish standards and carry out inspections. My feeling is that, whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion, it’s best to be proactive.
For video streaming of many of the Raw Milk Symposium sessions, take a look at this site. It begins with Canadian raw dairy farmer Michael Schmidt’s moving account of his long spiritual and historical journey through the worlds of raw milk and biodynamic farming.
***
The Maryland food club victimized by an FDA undercover investigation that led to a federal court action against Amish farmer Dan Allgyer will be holding a demonstration on Capitol Hill at 10 a.m. this Monday. The food club, Grassfed on the Hill, wants to show visible support for Allgyer and other farmers victimized by the FDA. Speakers will include Sally Fallon of WAPF, Attorney Jonathan Emord, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures, and yours truly.
***
To the news that as many as one in every 38 children may be autistic, one raw dairy farmer stated, “That should increase business some more.”
Staver explained, for example, that everyone eats, so the precedent could allow the government to require consumers to purchase certain foods or ban them from purchasing others. Or, it make them pay whether they eat those products or not.
The court raised that issue, too, asking whether Congress would have the authority to require people to purchase broccoli or ban the purchase of transfats.
The admission by the solicitor general that Congress claims such power was called "stunning" by Staver.
Read more: Government: Congress holds absolute power over consumers http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297445#ixzz1M2mBQatC
I see people asking all the time here and elsewhere, "What good does it do a town or state to declare 'sovereignty' when the feds will just overrule them?" All I can say is, if you believe you're sovereign, then act like it. Stop asking for permission to exercise your rights.
I hope that the D.C. rally on Monday goes well. Good luck, Grassfed on the Hill! Your situation could happen to any of the food clubs around the country, so we'll be rooting for you.
The rise of autism is scary. My heart goes out to the many families coping with this disorder.
Many raw milk farmers are new to dairy and they enter a situation where the conventional advice on how to do things is littered with bad, wrong, or inappropriate recommendations and recommendations that will lead to unsafe raw milk. The appaulingly short shelf life of milk out of conventional farms (raw or pasteurized) is a testament to this. But the information on how to do it right is scattered, incomplete or hides the diversity of valid approaches.
I still think this is a bad idea. Such things have been co-opted or mandated by the government many times in the past. Whole swaths of our economy have been roped off by gatekeepers requiring expensive fees, education, inspection, licensure, infastructure etc; both in farm (organic cert, PMO) and non-farm (licensure for everything from doctors to internal designers). There is absolutely no reason to believe it won't happen again.
All these schemes do is establish a cadre of haves and have nots. Their record of actually accomplishing safety objectives is dismal at best. I mean, a good percentage of the folks seeking raw milk are doing so because the licensed and controlled medical community is not only failing to do their job, they're making people sicker! (Iatrogenic Deaths are one of if not THE leading cause of death in the US) Regulation has failed in other areas too such as in meat processing and the PMO.
So if government mandated education, tests, and licensing (such as for medical docs) doesn't actually accomplish safety what will it accomplish? Bureaucratic hastles, increased costs, fewer new farmers, bigger and fewer farms, less responsiveness to consumers, lower accountability to consumers. And all of that will inevitably lead to poorer safety and lower milk quality.
Why is it that force is the only way put forth to accomplish safety? It is force that got us in this position in the first place. What are our other options?
Very good points. Sometime I think such actions as the MN raids on farmers and the FDA court action against Dan Allgyer, the PA Amish farmer, are largely tests. The authorities want to see how far they need to push to create enough fear that consumers and farmers back off. Once they get the fear factor up high enough that people are dropping out of food clubs or farmers are abandoning their mission, the authorities take the model on the road, use it ever more widely. But if the targeted victims stand up and push back, then the authorities face a test, a test that gives them real problems. As you suggest, "If you feel you are sovereign, then act like it."
David
Til then, they're just ChattyCathy dolls … pull their string and they parrot the central party line, sylable for sylable.
We've been too kind to the high-priced stooges for the dairy cartel. Find some avenue within official-dom to make the fearmongerers put up or shut up.
For instance in BC, I've just come across the 2006 CORE statement of policy of the Food Safety Branch … which they boast is predicated in "evidence-based medicine" !! Ostensibly they have a "tool" for determining the category of risk a food falls in. They don't elaborate … but they will before I'm finished with them
Last year, the Chief Medical Health Officer brayed in the newsmedia that there were "many many many many" instances ( 4 'many's ) of people getting sick from drinking raw milk in British Columbia. But when I required him to produce the evidence of such, he could not.
the Truth goes on forever, but a lie comes to an end
I agree with many of the points you make.
It is a difficult situation we face, but in my experience, some of the new farmers getting into raw milk are actually doing a better job than the older more experienced ones. In some ways, the new farmers bring a fresh "outsiders" perspective to dairy farming that the older multi-generational farms lack.
I must ask — How experienced of a farmer is Mike Hartmann? He seems to have managed to make a number of people sick with significant E. Coli contamination of his cheese and milk. Perhaps he is an experienced farmer who has developped an careless attitude about allowing manure into the milk over the years?
Will an inspection and certification program improve raw milk safety? Will it prevent outbreaks? I think that all depends on how it is implemented. I do agree that we do not want to create a situation of haves and have-nots — we want a certification program that is equally accessible to all, and that addresses and includes a variety of approachs to farming. But we do need to address the problem of outbreaks caused by raw milk. The fact that we have very limited resources does not make this problem any easier.
As it happens, even farmers whose milk does not make people sick, never made people sick, still run the risk of losing their farms.
Gordon, I couldn't agree more with, "We've been too kind to the high-priced stooges for the dairy cartel. Find some avenue within official-dom to make the fearmongerers put up or shut up."
Let's start with the word "inherent" as in "raw milk is inherently dangerous." You read that a lot from USDA/FDA and hack blogs. I think they should be sued every time they use that phrase. It's not inherently dangerous, it has to be made that way. People who use that phrase are deliberately misleading the public (or outright lying).
I don't say a certification can't be done. Its just the failures far outnumber the successes (if any successes even exist) when it comes to looking at the safety and liberty aspects. The attempt at cert for safety may very well have the opposite affect of reducing safety and killing the raw milk movement. All for the purpose of chasing a non-issue created by the government.
Sounds like playing into their hands if you ask me.
It is also very misleading to make someone believe if they only drink small amounts of raw milk when they first begin drinking it that this will somehow magically prevent an illness. If the milk is contaminated with E.coli 157:H7, it only takes a small amount to make someone ill. If a person drinks a small amount each day from a batch that is contaminated, that will add up to consuming a large amount of pathogenic bacteria.
Just curious. Did anyone at this symposium talk about ways to prevent the cow shit from getting in the milk?
DNA fingerprints are not the only link that has been offered in Mike Hartman's situation. The authorities claim they also found multiple strains of E. Coli O157:H7 in samples of cheese taken from his farm.
Could they be flasifying evidence? Yes, it is possible, but I doubt it. Could they be exagerrating the extent of the problem? That is probably the more likely scenario. I would like to go and investigate the situation myself, but I do not have the time or resources to. That is why we need a certifying organization which is friendly to raw milk rights, to conduct independent investigations when there are outbreaks, so we don't have to rely on regulators who have a knee-jerk hostility to all raw milk.
From first hand experience, I can say that I have seen muliptle producers of raw dairy products who do a sloppy job and allow gross contamination from coliform and pseudomonas. It is instantly recognizable to me, because I know what to look for in smell and taste. But the producers did not seem to think it was a problem, and neither did his/her customers.
My basic point here is this — do we want to continue opperating at the margins of society and treated as criminals by the authorities? Or do we want raw milk and raw milk cheese to be a legitimate mainstream food choice? Perhaps you would rather that we continue to operate in the shadows? If so, I'm interested in your line of reasoning.
In regard to food production (as well as many other biological systems), loss of balance can occur anywhere along the production pathwayin soil, in plants, in animals, in processing, and in consumers (hosts). Each segment is as important as the others, but because of our current phobic medical paradigm we tend to focus entirely on the production piece, and define illness potential as the mere presence there of a microbe. That is a dangerously inadequate and hurtful health strategy.
By endlessly promoting germophobia, antimicrobialism, monoculturism, and early detection and treatment over prevention, our medical and regulatory communities have pretty much assured that no one in America will enjoy a fully functioning immune system, nor, and more importantly, after indoctrination into the system, enjoy a full appreciation of our dependence on diverse life forms.
Having come a very long way down this foul path, today we blithely live in artificial urban and suburban environments, swim in chlorinated pools, breath conditioned air, avoid contact with dirt, and scrub every speck of nature from our skin and our environment with antimicrobial soaps and disinfectants. Then when we find ourselves sick we earnestly turn our attention to locating the source of a particular microbe and apply broad-spectrum kill steps to fix the supposed tragedy. In so doing we perpetuate the paradigm, and further limit our health potentials. (This is how, by the way, we confidently conclude that a few illnesses among many consumers are necessarily resultant of a contaminated product. I am not saying that it isnt possible, of course. Im merely saying that it isnt always so, especially in fluid products like milk where microbes are generally very well dispersed, and in semi-fluid environments like batch hamburger mixers where microbes are pretty well dispersed.)
The most important benefits of raw milk are therefore not found in its inherent food values (as congenial as they may be) but in raw milks actual and representational position as a contact point with the intricate realm of natural, biological interdependencies, microbial and otherwise, that sustain and support us. We cannot, we absolutely cannot, be healthy outside of our proper place in the great fraternal network of diverse, symbiotic life.
Now before anyone asks, let me say that yes, I always wash the udder and my buckets and other utensils well (with soap and water), and I discard milk that is not sweet (almost never happens). But more than thatmuch, much more than thatI pay close attention to the health of my soil and plants and animals and family. I wouldnt bet a nickel that such efforts would ever assuage the perceptions of the indoctrinated, who demand assurance that a food can assure safety on its own, without regard for its biological context.
What is the logical end point of health care and food safety if we continue to ignore biological context? And in regard to Davids current post, can milk processing standards designed to placate the indoctrinated ever be realistic? Seems more likely that some illness will appear even when standards are in place, and we will then conclude that we have proved what the narrow-minded knew all along: The only safe food is dead food.
That is what is missing from laboratory testing.I don't have any confidence in pathogen testing as a way to understand the cause of illness.
Unfortunately we live in a world where monoculture is the norm and the goal.We need to change to a permaculture way of seeing.
From Sepp Holzer's Permaculture:
"All of the elements within a system interact with each other."
" Every element fulfills multiple functions and every function is performed by multiple elements."
"diversity instead of monoculture"
Everything lab technicians think they understand about "pathogens" is a result of studying these micro organisms out of context.
Bill,
"My basic point here is this — do we want to continue operating at the margins of society and treated as criminals by the authorities? Or do we want raw milk and raw milk cheese to be a legitimate mainstream food choice? Perhaps you would rather that we continue to operate in the shadows? If so, I'm interested in your line of reasoning."
The Authorities are wrong to judge food safety by the presence of certain microbes.In fact the very testing methods they use do not stand up to questioning.They simply are not valid.It is a case of "we have developed a test for this microbe so let's use it". 99% of microbes cannot be tested for because we don't know anything about them.Balance is a result of all of the interactions between the elements in a system.How can we make any judgement about the cause of an imbalance by looking at only one element in the system?
The Authorities are operating in the dark,I don't think we should join them.The people I know,feel that the authorities are at the margins.Let's educate people,including the authorities,about the true nature of the world we live in.We need to bring them out of the dark first,then we can can really talk to them about food safety.
I my humble opinion, if America is going to become stronger, feed its people and secure the health of its next generations….then standards for raw milk will be needed and they will need to embraced by the farmers and their consumers.
This will bring forward the serious producers that do not want to get kids sick, or get sued by Marler, the serious producers that want to establish and secure their reputations for the long term and the serious producers that want to break from the "State by State Raw Milk Kaos" that is being celebrated by the CDC, FDA and CAFO PMO industry and processors.
Some of us will disagree about how this new set of standards will look and act.
I have taken very careful notes about all sides of this change and the notion of a national certification and standards system. RMAC has taught us much.
I believe that a system of raw milk policemen is not the pathway foreward.
The way foreward will be forged by common simple goals that are set for everyone to follow if they want to be certified as following the national standards. An example could be:
Low bacteria counts
Zero pathogens
TB testing of herd
No commingling of Raw Milk
Mandatory Customized Food Safety Program designed especially for their farm.
This a third party system. Not mandatory.
Every bottles of raw milk that are sold are missing something very important right now…the consumer has no way of understanding how well that raw milk is produced or what the standards were or what the bacteria counts were. Consumers that visit a farm have no idea what to look for…they are poorly prepared to do an audit!!
The national seal or certification program would provide this information and transparency to all. All raw dairy products that participate could carry this seal and their data and story would be shown on a website for all to review and see.
The most important part of this program is this. It is voluntary and it contains a speciallized risk specific Food Safety Program designed for each farm. The farmer works with the raw milk program to make this happen. It is his program and his flight plan for success. Each would be different because each farm has different systems and risks.
There may be those that disagree with this approach, but after speaking with at least 100 raw milk dairymen across America in the last 5 years….I have not met one that did not want to get involved in this type of program. The program would even provide access to lower insurance rates for the sale of raw dairy products. Insurance could very well kill raw milk if this is not addressed. Insurance companies want standards and demand responsible plans for producers.
This program is well under way and I am proud to say that the Advisory Board has some very familiar names on it….names you will all recognize. The board of directors is being formed right now and the website is nearly done.
The name of this new Non-Profit is "Raw Milk Institute" and you will be hearing more and more about it as it gets rolling. It will not be directly associated with FTCLDF or WAP…but there will be many common threads. We felt that it needed to stand separately for objectivity and a fresh start from anything old or lingering.
This is a new age for raw milk. We must stand strong whether you have a cow share with three cows or a pasture based 300 cow herd feeding thousands of people every week in retail…you need standards and a plan for safety and success. RAWMI will be the place to make this happen.
If you want to not follow this path….you are free to stand alone. That is ok….this is America. But for most all of us farmers in this Raw Milk Revolution…that is not the way to hang together or secure a more powerful front to deal with the likes of the FDA or Deans Foods or Land O Lakes or Bill Marler any other threat. Defense of our precious raw milk deserves a powerful voice and a powerful system. This system will not come from the FDA.
Here is a little piece that just came out last week.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/05/02/healthwatch-athletes-use-super-milk-for-a-boost/
Another example of how things get done in CA and how creative and legal avenues can be opened.
All the best,
Mark
There is a fork in the road ahead for Raw milk. Some of us see Raw milk as a business,some of us see it as a struggle to have control over what we choose to eat.If you go down the road of commerce,you will necessarily have to have some sort of organization that will certify the quality of the milk for those members of the anonymous "public" who expect someone to take the responsibility from their shoulders.History shows me that this is a difficult never ending struggle.See how Organic certification has become meaningless to those who have done their own research into what it means.People have become disconnected from their food supply and their local community.A third party certifier enables them to remain disconnected.Some of the people will choose to reconnect their lives to those things that are most important like food.They don't need the certifier because they are willing to do the work to understand how to judge the quality of the food.It doesn't take very many families to support a small diversified farm.The farm and the families it feeds operate like an extended family or a tribe.People know each other.Trust and caring are important.This is NOT a commercial relationship.Producing food in this case is NOT a business opportunity.Instead of building our business we are working on building our community.Food is just a fun way to accomplish this important work.
When I go speak to the La Leche League members in LA, your concept of feeding the local tribe does not feed these moms with kids that are sick…..
I agree their is a fork in the road and some will make a choice between the two or more paths.
The problem is that right now…the FDA and CAFO FOOD INC is celelbrating the confusion that is happening at this cross roads. In fact there is a huge car wreck at this intersection.
For those producers that want to join together and become a force of change….RAWMI is the mechanism to do this. RAWMI does not desciminate between one cow and 500 cows. All it does is bind together as a force those with a common goal….safe raw milk.
This is something that can not be done unless producers come together and embrace some decent policies. Policies that are specific to each producer and customized to their set of risks.
Organic certification did very well to accomplish market acceptance….except for milk. Nealry all other areas were a success. The organic milk industry became usurped by UHT and the processors.
RAWMI is not subject to FOOD INC forces or USDA food Pyramid Politics….RAWMI is "we the producers that serve the people and the moms". RAWMI is needed at many levels….Insurance will require it…consumers need it to be able to verify details missing when they visit the farm….farmers need it to address the sharks in the water….Marler.
RAWMI is a .org whose time has come. Confusion in raw milk is not a plan for a better immunity for children.
Miguel….I love the local tribal feeding concept you bring to the table. But this does not feed people in the real world….that need food for their kids with failed immune systems right now in America. To ignore these moms and their needs is heartless and irresponsible.
Mark
TB testing of herd"
These standards are taken right out of the old playbook.The rules of this game are completely controlled by those who think they can find and track the "scary pathogens" back to the source and close down the offending business.These "pathogens" are only scary in the context of a system that focuses on the production of one commodity and excludes all others: Monoculture.
The goal of feeding good food to lots of people cannot be realized by a few large businesses each concentrating on producing large amounts of one commodity.It is too bad that many people have become so disconnected from their food supply.This is the real problem to solve.Unfortunately many of the people do not want to reconnect.They would prefer to go on with their individual disconnected lives.If they give someone else the responsibility that is rightfully theirs they will be surprised at how things turn out.
Small scale diversified farming based on Permaculture principles with a community of people working together to produce food for themselves is an old idea and it worked until some of the people chose to turn it into a business and make a "claim " of ownership over the land.
I have to strongly disagree with you about "Organic" certification.People think that Organic means free of industrial ag contamination.In fact,when CAFO manure is allowed to be used as fertilizer for Organic crops,the contaminates in the CAFO manure are taken up by the crop.SO,we have certified Organic food with RoundUp residues,antibiotic residues and all kinds of pesticide residues.
I share your ideals of permaculture, and living in a community in which the laws of commerce do not dictate our economic structure. However, I don't think that your analysis of the organic label is entirely fair. While it has had its share of scandals, there are those who are still fighting to preserve the purity and meaning of organics. The Cornucopia institute is probably the most important:
http://www.cornucopia.org/
They have successfully challenged the organic certification of numerous "organic" factory farms, while promoting higher standards for organics in general.
Organic certification, and premiums it provides, has helped to save many small family dairy farms in Wisconsin, from being consolidated into the industrial farming complex. It is not a perfect solution, by any means, but it is certainly better than the alternative. Even farms that practice permaculture in Wisconsin (I know of several — one of them is a founding member of Organic Valley and is still with the co-op) have to sell into commercial organic markets in order to make ends meet.
This is the reality of the situation we have to deal with. It would be a mistake to juxtapost biodiversity against having high sanitary standards for the collection and storage of raw milk. They are very much complimentary. We want biodiversity in milk — we just don't want that bio-diversity coming from unclean equipment and copious quantities of manure.
Let's not make perfection the enemy of progress.
Let's not alienate ourselves from reality, and in doing so fail to serve our customers and moms that are begging for safe delicious raw milk. Under your plan everyone would need a garden and a cow.
Miguel. Glorious utopia. You are dreaming and are not feeding teaching or nourishing. But a great dream. This dream is personal and works at the individual level. It does not work for the teacher in LA or Oakland. They need to go to farmers markets and buy from farmers.
Lets not judge others that choose not to have and butcher their own chickens or milk their own goat. This is the 21st century.
Remember this. Testing verifies whether the conditions are biodiverse and as planned in your farm plan. It bad bugs start to show up, conditions are not as planned. Time to make corrective action.
It is the best science we know and have. It is also acceptable by "the powers that be." This is the way forward and how to become respected. To do otherwise makes the movement appear to be some kind of dangerous joke. I serve the moms and will not neglect this responsibility.
Mark
Mark
Mark
I sincerely applaud your activism and teaching mantra, but I have to agree with Miguel here. It is great that raw milk is legal in CA and that you are serving a needed market. I happen to be a Mom of a kid with a bruised immune system (peanut allergy) who would not buy raw milk at a store even if it was legal here. I am part of a herd share and I prefer to see the farm conditions weekly when I go pick up my milk. I want to continue to have this choice.
You can trump up whatever safety standards you want, but we all know this issue has ZERO to do with safety (despite what Marler, CP, and other naysayers on this blog have to say about it) and EVERYTHING to do with control — control over what we eat, how we eat it, how it is produced and who profits from it. If it were about safety, CAFOs would be outlawed and DeCoster would be out of business.
The FDA and USDA have no idea what good nutrition is — the fact is nutrition is unique to the individual person. They only see "the masses" and cannot wrap their brains around what it means to feed people responsibly and sustainably. The government sees global, not local issues and I still don't understand why it's the US's responsibility to "feed the world" Besides, the GMO corn diet is not healthy for anyone, but they'll never admit that because it would cause their global economy and profits and lobby groups that get them elected to come crashing down.
Lest we all forget that these same entities who believe in "safety" and "standards" have no problem with shutting down farms where product shows pathogens (listeria) despite the fact that no one has become ill from the pathogens. What does this say about their integrity or their knowledge about microbes and how our body reacts to them? The answer is that they haven't got a clue and I do not and will never trust them to have the required knowledge or judgement to use these "standards" for safety, because they don't and will never understand the complexity of our natural systems.
Alice
Hear here, hear here.
I share your efforts and I agree with much of what you have to say however in this case I would suggest that Migel and Dave are the ones in fact in tune with reality, the rest of you are caught up with what can best be described as a greed and/or fear driven insanity based on an increasingly narrow focus on organisms. Such an approach undermines symbiotic process and is therefore unsustainable.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
Albert Einstein
We are drowning in a sea of regulatory standards based on the established reality of the self righteous. What indeed is the primary goal for establishing standards? My perception at least is that standard proponents are concerned more with cosmetic appearances and liabilities then they are with health since clearly standards have far from generated healthy food.
Ken Conrad
I couldn't agree more….
Raw milk certification will only grow the margins and classes of people treated as criminals. Its nothing more than extending the PMO to raw milk. The end results will be the same as with the PMO.
"This a third party system. Not mandatory…It is voluntary " – Mark
This is deceptive. Such programs can easily be made mandatory and have many times in the past. It will be very easy for RAWMI to cut a deal with the government such that they gain government sanction while making all other raw milk producers illegal.
"The national seal or certification program" – Mark
Consumers don't trust label claims Mark. And they don't trust cetification programs either. These things are often false, misleading, or corrupted. What they trust is their taste buds, relationships with farmers, and knowledge of how their milk is produced. No 3rd party certification program can do that; only real relationships. What such programs can do though is make it easy to legitimize large corporate dairies while squeezing out the new and small operations who can't afford the compliance costs.
"Organic certification did very well to accomplish market acceptance….except for milk. Nealry all other areas were a success." – Mark
Milk got the most bad press. But the problems are just as bad or worse in other areas. They just havn't gotten attention yet. Miguel's assesment is dead on, organic cert it is increasingly meaningless and increasingly dominated by large farms and corporations. The vast majority of small, truely organic farms feeding people on the local level don't even bother or have dropped out of the program.
Why don't we just stand up and say what we know to be true?Focusing our attention on a few or even on quite a few individual microbes will not get us to our goal which is the safest food possible
There are tests that can be done that demonstrate nutrient content.It has been said that "the most toxic foods are those that are grown in calcium deficient soil and passed off,to an ignorant public as fresh healthy food" —-Dr. A. F. Beddoe
A refractometer can be used to measure mineral content,I think a tongue works quite well too.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lactobacillus-beverage-confirmed-to-reduce-fever-brought-on-by-acute-gastroenteritis-caused-by-norovirus-infection-121544899.html
"contribute as an effective means of protection against infectious gastroenteritis including norovirus infection, and respiratory and other infections"
Mineralization of soil, and pasture grazing of dairy cows would have to be part of any raw milk standard. I agree with you about these matters. Food safety cannot be reduced to merely keeping the "bad bugs" out — it must be a wholistic approach that includes the total health of the entire farm system, including bio-diversity.
Perhaps a better question I should ask you is this:
How do we deal with the farms that are making people sick? We can't just keep playing the denial and conspiracy theory games.
I personally have been a consumer of the raw milk from one farm that was implicated in an outbreak. At the time, I was new to raw milk, and did not have any point of reference or background in dairy science to tell you whether it was good quality milk or not.
It was not until several years after the outbreak, and a fair amount of formal training as a cheese maker, that I came to recognize what was wrong with that farm's milk and why it was implicated in the outbreak — the farmer was not properly cleaning the pipeline and had a serious pseudomonas buildup. The milk did not last for more than 6 days in the fridge — it thickened and turned bitter, especially in the presence of oxygen. At the time I assumed this was normal. Now I know better.
This milk had gross pseudomonas contmination. This farmer operated under the assumption, much as you do, that the bio-film buildups in his milk pipeline were a good thing because of the "bio-diversity" they created (more like a rapid spoilage effect). And then he made 35 people sick, mostly children, from campylobacter whose infection rate is dramatically increased by the presence of pseudomonas.
The customers of this farmer are still in denial about the outbreak.
What should we do about this farmer? And what should we do about a farmer like Mike Hartman? He has not only brought repercussions to himself, but to other farms and distributers of nutrient-dense foods in Minnessota, because he allows significant quanities of manure to get into his milk.
Outbreaks are a black eye on the entire raw milk movement, and the majority of farms that are being responsible about food safety inevitably become the victims of the irresponsible attitudes of the few farms that do not take food safety serious.
What should we do? Do you have a solution? If your milk is being produced properly, then it should test negative for pathogens and have relatively low standard plate counts. This isn't to say it lacks bio-diversity — if you were to clabber the milk you would surely discover the seeds of bio-diversity that it posses. A low bacteria plate count is merely a sign that the milk is being properly harvested and stored.
Is it an afront to your conception of bio-diversity to suggest that regular basic laboratory tests can verify the safety of raw milk?
You state, How do we deal with the farms that are making people sick? We can't just keep playing the denial and conspiracy theory games. This is the type of statement I would expect from Bill Marler.
What about Levon Farms in Texas, with apparently impeccable cleanliness and serious attention to safety. http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/4/25/taking-illness-bull-by-the-horns-should-raw-dairies-be-issui.html
The fact that raw milk sales increase with each outbreak speaks volumes. Is this one of the repercussions you are referring to?
Those who make a conscious choice to defend their right to consume raw milk have every reason to believe that health authorities are indeed playing games designed to manipulate their right to choose.
Standards are not a solution when safety is clearly not the issue. The raw milk movement is a threat to those who wish to control the dairy industry and standards will not dissuade them from their disruptive objective.
Ken Conrad
Yep.
"Such programs can easily be made mandatory and have many times in the past…"
Yep.
"What such programs can do though is make it easy to legitimize large corporate dairies while squeezing out the new and small operations who can't afford the compliance costs."
Yep.
"Consumers don't trust … certification programs either. These things are often false, misleading, or corrupted."
Yep. Just think of all that "organic" food now coming from China… are you kidding me??? There aren't enough certifiers in the United States, and we're supposed to believe China's organic programs are okay???
"…organic cert is increasingly meaningless and increasingly dominated by large farms and corporations. The vast majority of small, truly organic farms feeding people on the local level don't even bother or have dropped out of the program."
Yep. I advertise my produce and product as "Better Than Organic" and my farm sales have accordingly increased.
"Standards are not a solution when safety is clearly not the issue. The raw milk movement is a threat to those who wish to control the dairy industry and standards will not dissuade them from their disruptive objective."
yep, yep, yep, yep, yep…. all sound reasons why I personally resist "certification." If that makes me a backward-looking Utopia dreamer, so be it. Maybe I don't, and possibly couldn't, and wouldn't even if I could, feed thousands, but all the people I do feed are very happy I'm here.
Nor have I made anyone sick, including the 3-month-old infant who is now four months old, and thriving on raw milk.
The above article states, Not just small farms are affected by government intrusion via hyper-regulation. Church suppers, potlucks, bake sales, Scout sales, lemonade stands, community picnics, and all traditional food sharing events must now follow strict safety protocols. All food producers must be licensed, and all food must be sterilized and packaged, according to the federal Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).
Before you know it regulation and an accompanying license will be required in order to go for a turd.
Ken Conrad
We have a very active little Hornets nest right here at home at the complete patient.
Interesting that these voices are not what I hear from our consumers. I know my customers well. I speak with them constantly and they invite me to their homes, churches, gyms, club meetings etc….I listen to them closely. I also have spent a great deal of time with raw milk farmers across America.
Both farmers and consumers…. want standards and a seal that means something. They want testing. They want a website that shows all the details so they can study and understand what they are eating. They do not have the time or education to do an indepth study or audit of their farmer.
Take Hartman…do you think he would allow an investigation of his records or his checklists for a common consumer. This does not work. Consumers are too embarrassed and do not have the time or social back bone to do this work. Most importantly….I do not think the voices spoken so well above even read what I wrote about RAWMI.
RAWMI is volentary much like RMAC. As farmer if you do not want to poor your guts out and explain your food safety objectives and plans to your consumer…then don't.
Did you read that part???
The RAWMI seal would mean something because of the facts and the consumers personal experience. Brace yourselves. Bill Marler will own the movement if this movement does not get its head out of its off the reservation do not tred on me philosophy.
For those of us that are serious about feeding people insurance is a reality. You will not get insurance very soon for raw milk unless you are connected to a greater group of producers that follow some standards. That is a fact…
if you want to be a cow share and exist on the fringe of society….god bless you. Go for it.
I embrace freedom….I also embrace responsible standards for those that need and want them.
I have said this before. As a pilot there should be rules for ultra lites and their should be rules for small planes and there should be rules for Boeing 747's.
If you are a little cow share….you are free to fly. Few rules should apply. But you will sit next to the guy piloting and you had better damn well know him and his mental state and how many drinks he has had.
If you sit in the back of the 747….behind the bullet proof locked door, then you trust that some third party has checked the aircraft, created a plan for its successful take off and landing and that someone has checked the pilot.
For your information….very few people die in 747 jets….tons die in utralites.
RAWMI is a raw milk training camp for raw milk diarymen. When they leave they can fly their ultralite or their 747…it all depends on what they own and who they serve. Planning and training makes for far better flights and much happier passengers.
Not sure how many of you ney-sayers would climb on board an aircraft, with a person without training, with out checking the tires or fuel tanks….and just blast off.
It is a free country. But before blasting away at RAWMI…perhaps you appreciate the volentary nature of this important and critically needed next step.
I know for a fact that TCP has attracted some very unusual dissident voices and opinions to this forum. These voices are not fairly representative of the broader consuming audience and or farmers that are begging for help.
Try selling raw milk at a farmers market or a store with out any insurance! Try surviving Bill Marler with out some insurance. You can move off your grandparents farm and move to town and enjoy gardening in the back yard of your brand new rental house.
Not my dream. If that is your reality….go for it. That is a risk I would never ever take.
Mark
"Is it an afront to your conception of bio-diversity to suggest that regular basic laboratory tests can verify the safety of raw milk?"
Regular,basic laboratory tests like bacteria count are basically the same test that you can do at home by clabbering some milk at room temperature.Smell ,gas or absence of gas bubbles,time it takes to clabber at a given temp,and flavor are your test results.
No laboratory can test the milk from each teat before it is added to the bulk tank,but our tongues can detect the presence of the waste products of many bacteria and they can identify milk that is low in bacteria from it's sweet taste.
Pathogen tests are based on information learned from studying different strains of bacteria in "captivity".Their behavior in the wild depends on the other microbes they share the environment with.Of course the bacteria that take the blame for disease are the ones that are easy to culture and keep alive in captivity.I don't trust that this information is transferable to their activity in the wild.
There should not be a division between consumers and producers.When consumers realize that they are sharing responsibility for the milk quality by thinking of themselves as co-producers they will take their responsibility to the farmer seriously and tell them when the milk is of poor quality.I encourage all milk drinkers to do your own testing.Surely if the milk does not keep it's sweet flavor for a week,there is a problem.You don't need a laboratory to test the milk,but if that is what you are comfortable with then you should let a laboratory test it.If the farmer does not take your concerns seriously,you should find a different farmer.
Biofilm in pipelines is a problem.Pipelines require strong chemicals and extremely hot water to keep clean.If a farmer is milking with a pipeline he should be monitoring the milk quality very closely.I abandoned milking with a pipeline because I have young people helping me and milking with bucket milkers is simpler and easier to clean and maintain properly.Most of all,we are very happy to not have to buy and use those chemicals anymore.
Should your milk test negative for pathogens?This is a complex question.That you will find an answer to if you go back and read everything I have referenced on this blog.What does happen to biodiversity when we label some microbes as bad and have a zero tolerance policy towards them.You might say it is only a few organisms but if you list all of the organisms on the planet that might potentially under the right circumstance overpopulate to the point of being a problem, aren't we on that list?It is about balance and NOT about bad organisms.
Why don't you explain how a zero tolerance policy for those "bad" microbes will make the milk safer?Is safety about eliminating diversity or encouraging diversity? I am not making a plea for allowing a high bacteria count,just a question about how you see biodiversity playing a role in building our immune systems.
I do not understand the hostility. Raw milk testing standards should be flexible enough to include someone like you milking a few goats, all the way up to someone like Mark who is milking hundreds of cows. The rigerousness of the testing should be appropriate to the size of the operation.
There are definetly repercussions from outbreaks. Mike Hartmann's irresponsibility has resulted in attacks on several other local food suppliers who were not responsible for his antics. We saw the same thing happen in Wisconsin in late 2009, after the outbreak I described above. Many responsible farms were attacked because of the carelessness of one.
The basis of any standard should be transparency. Are you afraid of transparency? Are you afraid of sending in a milk sample to a lab to be analyzed, and having the results published to the public? If you are doing a good job harvesting and storing the milk, there should be no reason to be afraid. It is only schmuks like Hartman whose milk is full of manure that have things to hide.
Its funny, because the regulators and the government are also afraid of transparency. I don't think we should be emulating them. I think that part of their goal with their tactics is to drive the market further underground and keep it out of the light of day. You are only playing into the government's hands when you resist transparency.
Clabbering is a very valuable tool which I use to evaluate raw milk quality, as a cheese maker.
However, it is only one tool and it is a very subjective tool. It does not tell you how many bacteria there are per mL. 500? 5000? 20,000? Does the milk have Staph? You wouldn't know just by clabbering.
Also, because clabbering happens at warm temps, it does not tell you what your cold-loving bacteria population is.
My philosophy is that the more ways you can look at the milk, the better. I use all of the methods you have described — taste, smell, feel, clabbering, and more — I use blacklights to look for biofilms buildups in harvest and storage equipment. I take pipeline socks and incubate them for several days, then look at them under a blacklight. There are many things you can learn about the milk.
These are all subjective, qualitative tests. They are very valuable tests, but they cannot be expressed as numbers. Laboratory testing is a way to produce a quantifiable result. It also tells you things that the subjective methods don't. Lab tests are just another tool we can use, but they are also a tool that makes sense to an insurance company or a public health agency. The subjective techniques are meaningless to them. And you can't publish the results of a clabber.
I respect your viewpoint Miguel, much more than the screeds of Lola Granola. You are clearly committed to sustainable farming and building community. But I think that it is a mistake to dismiss laboratory testing standards. These standards need to be set so that people have a baseline to work from. Not everyone has the experience and knowledge that you and I have about milk. That takes years to develop.
People who are new to raw dairy deserve safe raw milk just as much as we do. They will develop the subjective skills over time, but they need something to work from until they develop those skills. That is why we need quanitifiable laboratory testing standards.
Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with raw milk, Connecticut, 2008
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058911
In addition, weekly raw milk testing conducted voluntarily by farm X using a private laboratory revealed elevated levels of coliform bacteria (>50 CFU/mL) in 3 separate samples that were collected during the last week of June and the first 2 weeks of July. As a result, farm X voluntarily suspended its raw milk sales on 9 July. Four case patients experienced illness after the suspension of sales; 2 of these patients had consumed raw milk produced before the suspension, and the other 2 were infected from secondary and tertiary transmission, respectively.
MW
We are working In the world of the Old Play Book. Pathogens are politicaly significant and relevant. Pathogens like certain kinds of conditions and testing can verify that these not so great conditions exist in our production environments.
I need biodiversity for our raw milk to be safe. But this biodiversity is under certain grander conditions like sun drenched pastures, no antibiotics, grass fed cows in good health, TB free etc. I suppose a CAFO could be considered biodiverse as well but under the wrong controlling conditions.
Alta Dena failed just because of this. They failed because of recalls and bad press from Salmonella being detected. OPDC has never had one Salmonela ever detected but we do not have CAFO conditions.
Standards and training and the right conditions with a RAMP plan will set a producer free. Free to be sustainable and free from Marler. Free to feed his consumers.
I think that change is feared and learning is feared by many. It is even labeled and heckled.
It is a free country. Let good standards and RAMP programs prove themselves. It is voluntary.
As far as becoming a pon for the FDA, that is a stretch. A really far stretch. Me in bed with the FDA, that is a very funny and somewhat tragic bad joke.
Raw milk confusion is being celebrated by FoodInc and the FDA head in the sand, two cow cow share attitudes are just what they love.
Mark
http://hartkeisonline.com/raw-milk/mrs-moo-goes-to-washington/
An intersting case study. Its too bad that the authorities have managed to drum up so much fear around raw milk that "X' farms are hard to come by. I know of many farms in Wisconsin that might be willing to participate in such a study. Except they have been criminalized so thoroughly.
You can thank the dairy industry's unholy alliance with "public health" for that.
Once public health authorities start drinking raw milk in public, there might be a change in attitude amongst the farmers. That change is coming…
Miguel-
I too trust taste buds. I have learned much from them — more than any laboratory test. I was a cheese monger long before I ever became a cheese maker.
FYI — LESS THAN 1 COLIFORM PER ML is enough to create a bubbly gassy putrid clabber. I have experienced this first hand. One trick — you need to use rennet on your milk while it is still sweet. Rennet completely changes the fermentation dynamic. It entraps gasses and acids within the curd. Organisms that otherwise might fall to the wayside become dominant.
I also like to test the pH and TA on the finished clabber — both renneted and not. You can learn more things about the milk. It helps if you have tested the pH and TA on the initial "sweet" milk, to compare the differences.
-Bill