I’ve been feeling some uncertainty and discomfort about my two most recent posts.
1. On the uncertainty front, I’ve found myself thinking about the private lab tests in ways that never occurred to me previously. In my Jan. 29 post, I made this point: “There is definitely a valid ethical question deserving consideration about the responsibility of farmers and food producers to warn consumers and possibly recall product if private lab tests show pathogens.” But I didn’t explain further.
So I found myself wondering: Suppose a raw dairy conducting its own private lab tests learned a milk sample contained a pathogen. Or even further out there, suppose a raw dairy did a split sample test with the state, and the state’s report came back negative, and the private lab report came back positive?
What would/should the dairy’s response in such a situation be? I’ve never considered such possibilities because the reality over the last couple years has been that of state labs coming up with positive pathogen tests—especially in Pennsylvania and New York—and private labs coming up empty. But reading a commentary Lynn McGaha linked to gave me pause.
I had never even thought of such questions until this past week, when the Peanut Corp. of America scandal broke, and we learned this company didn’t recall product after a dozen private tests showed salmonella. And then Lykke, in comments on the Dennis Wenger and peanut posts, raised a number of serious questions about how food producers should approach lab testing.
It’s tempting (at least for me) to think that raw dairies tend to be small and scrupulous enough that they don’t have pathogen problems to begin with and, if they do, their customers have built up sufficient immunity that occasional contamination wouldn’t be a problem in any event. Moreover, the knowledge that a screwup would be much more costly than for any corporate food producer is a huge incentive to self police. But, as I said, I have this bit of uncertainty…
2. On the discomfort front, there is my previous posting about Sharon Palmer.
I was angry when I wrote my post—not always the best way to be writing. Robert Monahan in his comment makes the point better than I did: The search warrant was likely written the way it was to conform to legal requirements, and avoid mistaken identity. More important, he questions why California is doing sending “agriculture police” around to make trouble at small sustainable farms.
I did a little more checking and it turns out the reason a search warrant was even issued by a judge in this case was because the potential violations of law here are felonies. California, unlike other states like New York, doesn’t allow so-called administrative search warrants, such as the kind used to abuse Barb and Steve Smith of Meadowsweet Dairy.
Robert points out that the affidavit from the officers to the judge should provide more information. Unfortunately, in this particular case, the affidavit appears to be “sealed”—at least, I haven’t been able to track it down via the courts as yet, and sealing is accepted protocol in California felony investigations.
The problem for Sharon Palmer is that being found guilty of producing raw milk without a license and pasteurized milk products from an unlicensed facility are both felonies in California, punishable by anywhere from a year to three years in jail on each count. We’re talking a serious case here. Yes, a judge can decide to suspend the jail time and apply probation for a first-time offender. But you have to hope for a lenient judge—not the ideal legal position to be in.
The bigger question is this: Why are the authorities using extreme force to go after someone like Sharon Palmer, and on felony charges, no less? Part of my discomfort is about the argument I’ve heard from a few people: The sheriff has access to more information than I do, and I could wind up eating my words in defending Sharon, or anyone else. If we didn’t have the accumulation of other cases (Mark Nolt, Manna Storehouse) illustrating how the authorities use and abuse our legal guarantees to their advantage, I might be even more uncomfortable.
Okay, got those things off my chest.
I think it is valuable and brave to look back at posts and re-consider, especially if new information comes to light. I certainly do (whether it’s on a blog or elsewhere). I also think you are valid in questioning how the legal system is applied with regard to small farmers (and unpastuerized dairy) compared with large, corporate entitites. Hope I’m not copying too much of this article that came out on the AP a couple hours ago, but sure would be interesting to dig deeper into the list of arrests/convictions and see how the percentages break down with regard to food products and nutritional supplements.
Feds rarely file charges in tainted food cases
http://tinyurl.com/bmxlzs
"Part of that system is the ability to penalize the people that fail," said Michael Taylor, a food safety scientist at George Washington University. "And there’s been a real failure to do so at the federal and state level."
The Food and Drug Administration said it doesn’t track food-related prosecutions separately, but said its investigative arm logged 341 arrests and 279 convictions in 2006. Many of those involved counterfeit medicines and faulty or tampered products, which also fall under its jurisdiction.
Recent convictions include the 1996 case against juice-maker Odwalla Inc., which was fined $1.5 million on charges of shipping unpasteurized apple juice that killed a baby.
Five years later, Sara Lee Corp. was fined $200,000 after pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges of selling tainted meats in a listeria outbreak that killed 15 people.
The FDA also points to prosecutions in lower-profile cases, such as the 2007 conviction of a man who made false reports to investigators after a mix-up led to antibiotics being dumped into unpasteurized milk at a New York farm.
I would hope you acknowledge that you have an ethical and moral obligation to refrain from making statements which have no factual basis. Agreed? I think that is generally called lying, but perhaps in this instance more politely called "fabrication."
Please support this statement with even one instance when a split sample tested by both PA’s state lab and a private lab resulted in PA’s state lab reporting a positive pathogen finding and the private lab reporting a negative pathogen finding. You will not be able to. It has never, ever happened.
It is false statements like this that do not advance a healthy dialogue with regulators but just perpetuate misinformation to the readers of this blog and destroy any credibility you have.
in fact it has happened at least twice in recent months.
you’re on the edge of blowing any cred you may wish to establish/hold here. plus it proves you don’t really follow this blog since the documented evidence is here in prior posts. do you have a lacky scan the blog and alert you to topics you feel a need to discredit, smear? maybe you need to assign them the task of looking it up for you?
That is a very good question. Why are they? What purpose does it serve?
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/3/3/the-state-as-deity-even-when-caught-ny-ag-markets-cant-admit.html
"And the Cornell lab told Chuck its test is more sensitive than the Ag and Markets test."
No lieing nor fabrication; Stumps (sp) dairy begs to differ with you. If it occurs in NY, there is no doubt that it occurs elsewhere.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2007/9/18/the-strange-case-of-salmonella-at-americas-second-largest-ra.html
"Antonette called Glendora, who sent someone to pick up the remaining three-and-a-half gallons of milk, which she sent out to a private lab. Test results (copies of which Glendora sent me): negative for salmonella. But the state in its own tests of other milk from the dairy says it found salmonella."
This of course doesn’t involve a split sample, as Mr. Gumpert and I were both addressing. Mr. Gumpert understands the significance of a split sample. He said:
"Or even further out there, suppose a raw dairy did a split sample test with the state, and the states report came back negative, and the private lab report came back positive? What would/should the dairys response in such a situation be? Ive never considered such possibilities because the reality over the last couple years has been that of state labs coming up with positive pathogen testsespecially in Pennsylvania and New Yorkand private labs coming up empty."
This dialogue can only be advanced if there is an understanding that a sample from Farm A can contain a particular pathogen and a separate sample of milk at Farm A from a different tank, different day, and even same cow but separate milking, can be negative. That is the nature of cows, milk, pathogens and milking equipment. The presence of a particular pathogens in milk from Farm A is evidence that "other milk" from Farm A may contain that pathogen. However, "other milk" from Farm A may not contain that pathogen. Mr. Gumpert understands that, hence the significane of discussing "split samples," i.e the very same milk sample split and tested by two different labs.
Again, Mr. Gumpert was mistaken in this post and he should acknowledge that here.
The bottom line in testing for foodborne pathogensfood needs to be safe, regardless of the type of food.
I would hope if a private lab sample of raw milk tested positive for a pathogen the dairy farmer would notify the consumers. I think this falls under the category trust your farmer. With a cow share arrangement, that would be easy, but in states where raw milk is sold in stores, it gets more complicated. Are the stores notified and the product pulled off the shelf as if the state had issued a recall? Is the dairy farmer required to notify the state of a positive pathogen test? These are thought provoking questions?
The raw milk movement tends to deny the possibility of raw milk outbreaks. Not unlike White Supremacists who deny the Holocaust or a sect of conservative Christians who deny the existence of dinosaurs because they are not mentioned in the Bible.
When there is written information promoting the belief that raw milk has antimicrobial properties, I worry that a raw milk farmer may remain quiet if a private lab test came back positive, believing that the raw milk would take care of pathogen business and all will be well with the milk.
There are raw milk dairy farmers who comment often on this blog. I would love to hear their thoughts on this topic and how they would handle a positive pathogen test on a sample of raw milk.
cp
I was going to post something later on the "split sample" confusion, but you covered it. When it comes to reporters/media, I am pleased after an interview if they get the difference between a virus and a bacteria (how many times have the media reported something about "the E. coli virus," argh), let alone correctly describing the nuances of laboratory testing and what a split sample means. No insult meant toward you or David (he is getting information from all directions and seems to be trying to sort through it along with the ethical issues).
My 2 cents: the raw dairy producers could really benefit if they used a neutral, food safety consultant. At $12-20/gallon, why not add a few cents into the cost passed on to consumers and hire a smart, reputable, and unbiased food safety expert on an as-needed basis with the following criteria:
1) no strong feelings for or against raw dairy
2) extensive experience in food microbiology and laboratory testing, GMPs, HACCP, etc.
3) extensive experience in local/state/federal regulations relating to raw dairy and farming/processing/marketing
Calling each other "liers" is rather unproductive…I will probably get flamed to a crisp for suggesting that raw dairy farmers could benefit from some unbiased food microbiology consultation, but have seen so many statements by farmers here that reflect confusion about lab tests, HACCP, etc. Farmers should farm. There is nothing wrong with seeking expert advise about the government and private lab test results and their interpretation…and, it might add credibility to what I think is the bigger focus in this movement (food rights), vs. misuse of terminology including some of the endless debates and confusion about the content of state outbreak reports…
Your tinyurl link didn’t work.
Concerned Person,
I am disheartened by your tiresome repetition that "the raw milk community tends to deny the possibility of raw milk outbreaks". What is your evidence for this? I don’t believe anyone here denies the possibility of raw milk pathogens, and that possibility has been repeatedly affirmed on this blog. We’re just not into the fear-mongering of the "food safety" folks. My biggest fear is that someone with whatever Chris Martin had (Shiga?) will be inappropriately treated with antibiotics, because I suspect the medical paradigm these days is to reflexively give antibiotics. And thus a recoverable illness will turn into HUS and the patient permanently damaged. Have any of the people campaigning for food safety spent any effort trying to train medical people to recognize when antibiotics will be harmful?
You wrote "The bottom line in testing for foodborne pathogens-food needs to be safe, regardless of the type of food." I believe that is too narrow a focus. Food safety needs to be viewed in the larger context that food should provide nourishment for our bodies. You can sterilize food and make it free from foodborne pathogens, but I believe you are also removing the nourishment from it. I prefer to take my chances with live food that has not been processed, irradiated, microwaved, pasteurized, GMOed, or dosed with daily antibiotics as a precautionary measure. I agree I will not be nourished by food that makes me acutely sick, but I believe so-called safe food such as pastuerized milk (and people have become ill and died from that too) and irradiated meat may well lead to chronic illness.
As Regulator explains, testing for foodborne pathogens can be problematic. The tested sample might have the pathogen in it, or it might not. Instead of relying on a test to possibly catch an elusive pathogen, I think we’d all be better off by taking steps to improve our immunity. I kefir all my raw milk, I eat pastured beef, lamb, chickens, and eggs from local farmers, and I eat lacto-fermented foods (home-made sauerkraut, beet kvass, ketchup, sourdough waffles and baked goods). I even make my peanut butter from shelling Valencia peanuts that were shipped to me from New Mexico. Yes, it’s more time-consuming than using industrial food, and I’m not even raising the animals or growing my own garden (yet).
As Pasteur said on his deathbed, the pathogen is nothing, the terrain is everything. Improving the terrain takes work (as above) and is an individual responsibility. But the money is made by following the pathogen.
Large commercial operations dictate this kind of oversight…and this is why the small farmer, producing milk for a close circle of ‘people they know’ is the best guarantee of the quality of the product. Store shelves is a different world. The problem comes, when the regulations that are necessary for the mega producers, are extrapolated to the small, real family farm, farm share type operations……
It’s absolutely imperative that the milk be the most important thing…NOT how many gallons you are making, or what your profit margin is for that month. Investors (and commercial dairymen) don’t want to buy into that kind of alternative view…examining motivations is critical…..Less can be (and indeed is) more.
The lack of trust of the regulators by the raw milk community is totally justified….given the actions of those with power. There is an agenda here, and it’s not ‘making raw milk safer for everyone’. Acceptance by the regulatory community is the only way that the raw milk community will ever ‘play ball’….Russian roulette, and the misinformation that is constantly put out by the ‘authorities’, creates a wall of distrust that shows no sign of being broken down. Big Dairy will never stand for that (they feel that they are the only ones with the ‘right’ to milk products’) No wonder why few in the regulatory community are actually proposing reasonable solutions…..
The actions of the regulators create the distrust…it’s not the other way around.
For those farmers who ‘know’ their customers, these type of testing questions needn’t be even considered…..and this is why milk via personal contract is, and will be, the only right way that raw milk will flourish in the market.
Given these questions, why would I have any faith in any entity that allows all this? None of the above is healthy for the cow, nor humans.
Why is it so difficult for the "regulators" to leave me to consume what I choose?
http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/64/6/1483.pdf
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science/food-borne-illnesses.shtml
http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/hp2010.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/36/2004_food_o157.pdf
It is a shame that the docs that treated Chris martin didn’t heed the instructions from the AMA.
What is the track record of the regulatory system under the auspices of the USDA over the last 70 years. Is our food more nutritious, and are we less dependent on imports? How many farms have we lost over that time, is it 3 million? It was reported that 50 years ago cancer rates were 1 in 33 today its 1 in 3, Is there no connection to what we eat? The nation is grossly fatter than ever, no connection to the recommended fat free diet or so called food pyramid.? With a record like this its no wonder they insanely attack raw dairy farmers with guns drawn is it not? Something is very very fundamently wrong and its not the raw dairy farmers and consumers
We are not trying to force or coerce raw dairy on anyone else so just leave us alone isnt that the American way freedom to choose or has that been cast into the dust bin of history?
The food regulators and the monetary regulators have utter failed the only question is which will collaspe first the monetary system or our food system. Just MHO.
What is the answer to the questions above or do the even merit an answer these days?
In 2008 there were 3 raw milk E.coli 0157:H7 outbreaks. As a result, children developed HUS. All children who develop HUS are not given antibiotics and all children given antibiotics who have E.coli 0157:H7 do not develop HUS. The other high profile child in the OPDC outbreak did not receive antibiotics and she developed HUS. Many people in the 2006 E.coli spinach outbreak developed HUSthey were not all given antibiotics.
The research indicates if an antibiotic is given, there is a higher chance of developing HUS, but it is not an absolute. The link Sylvia provided states that the use of antimicrobial therapy is controversial and that data suggests that antimicrobial agents may be harmful.
So back to the topic at hand. What actions would/should a raw milk farmer take if he/she received a positive pathogen test from a private lab? Or any response to what lykke wrote.
cp
– Concerned Person
What a disgusting and telling comparison, lumping us in with White Supremacists. I am not offended by the conservative Christians, though they do seem to bother you.
I find denying the existence of dinosaurs a far less offensive act than the actions of bureaucrats denying me the right to make my own food choices.
No, it is not about Chris Martin, he just happens to have been brought up in the past numerous times on this blog by his mother, it is about the treatment he recieved by the physicians. Someone asked if the medical community was being instructed about food born pathogens and I searched. I posted a link, the was basically the same as posted within the last 2 yrs. No one said it was absolute. As to the treatment of Chris Martin, we may never know if the MDs giving him antibiotics contributed to him developing HUS or not. If you are not sure, then error on the side of caution…they apparently did not.
The topic at hand encompasses many factors, including my freedom to choose what I want to consume. I see that none of my questions are answered.
Lynn, sorry about the link. Try this…interestingly, according to the story, the lab testing under investigation relates to metal fragments and a shipment to Canada, not Salmonella.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/printedition/2009/02/01/prosecute0201.html?cxntlid=inform_artr
This is another interesting story published today in the AJC.
Troubled peanut firms chief also an industry quality adviser
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2009/01/31/parnell_0201.html
Finally, I’m still having trouble understanding what is meant by "improving out immunity" to prevent foodborne illnesses. Healthy lifestyles are important including good nutrition, and this country is in an abysmal situation with the obesity epidemic, heart disease, diabetes, etc. But, if you look at the individuals becoming severely ill from foodborne pathogens, they tend to be young or old – for example, setting aside the antibiotic controversy since not all the children were given antibiotics as cp points out, what could the parents of the recent HUS cases among children in CT, MO, and CA (hope I have those states right – going off of memory) have done differently to improve their children’s "immunity" so they did not become ill after exposure to a pathogen (whether that be in raw milk/colostrum or peanuts or any other contaminated food vehicle)?
I am way behind on issues on this blog, but saw the poking at the Ventura salary and for the record, I wouldn’t be too inclined to live in Ventura for 70K and I’m pretty low maintenance. It doesn’t go all that far there.
Amanda
That’s all. Carry on.
Median home prices drop to lowest since 2004
The median sales price was $477,750, a 15.4 percent drop from $565,000 a year ago. The median was the lowest since it hit $475,000 in April 2004.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/feb/13/bdxvdataquickweb/
Having drank raw milk for the last fifty years I am well aware that, I as well as my family and friends are drinking hundreds of thousands of living organisms some of which cp and fellow germaphobes would consider pathogenic. The more the better as far as I am concerned.
Due to the never ending toxic assault on the overall health of humans and animals alike, no food can be considered safe regardless of the type or the amount of testing being done. Rather then attempt to create a false sense of security through testing cp needs to acquire an objective grasp of reality. Pathogen testing is superfluous, has little effect on food safety and is primarily a shallow attempt designed to placate fear.
Lykke states, But, if you look at the individuals becoming severely ill from food borne pathogens, they tend to be young or old. Indeed they are, and one has to keep in mind when setting aside the antibiotic controversy, that it is this very same group of individuals (the very young and old) who are singled out for multiple injections with toxic vaccines.
Ken Conrad
Jer. 11:5 does seem say that raw dairy is by an oath a gift from God for those that obey. There was no way to pasturize milk in those days and no license required. All debts were forgiven every 7 years and there was no property tax, no school tax, no sales tax, there were however some tithes paid but by doing that blessing were promised. Sounds like maybe they were much better off than we are today.
It also commands us as individuals not to lie or steal that we should agree upon, but what of the state. Is the state exempt from lying and stealing?
I have been privy to individual and group discussions with farmers about pathogens, milk testing and urgent questions about what to do if a Mom calls them with that sick kid question..They think about it all the time. They know they are feeding babies and cancer patients. But it isn’t a crap-shoot. They do know what they’re doing.
They test their milk at the same lab and we distribute (anonymous) group reports once a month so they can compare themselves with their peers. They discuss test results, and have access to free one-on-one consultations with 2 vets at CSU, and the microbiologist at the lab. If we had more money, we’d test more often – just to prove that it isn’t there – and on the outside chance that it is. It’s becoming more routine, but I know that we all hold our breaths until that milk sample goes out the door, and quietly let it out when the test results come back.
They not only post test results on the farm and/or their website, they show them to each other – competing dairies. That’s a darn good quality check if you ask me!
Most of these guys don’t have liability insurance, so their neck is on the block every day. (I’d like to see commercial dairies, Tyson or Cargill operate without liability insurance.) They don’t leave their farm unless someone they trust can do the milking and take care of the animals. They drink their own milk and feed it to their own kids.
So while it’s understandable to question a farmer’s integrity about milk test results, I find this particular thread hard to swallow.
-Blair
My original 10 Great Thoughts (tongue in cheek) were actually 11GT since I duplicated one of the numbers, so I’m restating them here properly numbered for easy reference and to focus on the testing issue.
Also, I’ve edited #1 to recognize that on January 28, 2009 Ron Paul introduced HR 778 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.778🙂 to remove the FDA’s interstate ban on raw milk shipments packaged for human consumption. IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND ENCOURAGE HIS/HER SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION AND OBTAIN THEIR COMMITMENT TO CO-SPONSOR.
Regarding testing, Please see #9 now properly labelled:
9) An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.
This GT#9 is obviously general, but I think might be fleshed out in this discussion. For example, suggestions to flesh out GT#9 might benefit from using some common language. I’m not proposing regulations here, particularly for private contracts/cow shares (Blair offers a wonderful example of how open test results/sharing can be used voluntarily to increase quality and safety). However, I think even private contractual relationships will benefit in having some basic understandings, perhaps voluntary standards, because even though they would not be regulated, the threat of lawsuits and the availability of insurance will inevitably be affected based on how professionally the enterprise is run (see GT#11).
So, what I’m proposing here is more along the lines of a "vocabulary" to help along the discussion about testing:
A) LEVELS OF TEST RESULTS
1) "Clean" (test results are within acceptable parameters of voluntarily-adopted production and herd standards see GT#11)
2) "Quality Warn" (test results which warn of poor shelf life, process problems or early warning on animal health such as high coliform or high somatic cell counts).
3) "Possible Cull" (herd health test results such as Johnes, TB, brucellosis)
4) "Single Pathogen Positive" (positive for e coli 0157:H7, salmonella, listeria monocytogenes, campylobacter)
5) "Confirmed Pathogen Positive" (two Single Pathogen Positives from split samples or from two samples separated in time)
B) LEVELS OF ILLNESS REPORTS
1) "Healthy" – no illness reports
2) "Unverified Illness Report" (single case, with no or only screening test result)
3) "Verified Illness Report" (single case, but with confirmed test result)
4) "Linked Verified Illness Report" (linked to raw milk source)
5) "Unverified Outbreak Report" (multiple cases, with no or only screening test results)
6) "Verified Outbreak Report" (multiple cases with confirmed test results)
7) "Verified Linked Outbreak Report) (multiple cases confirmed and linked to raw milk source)
C) LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION
1) "Normal" communication (see GT#2, 3, 8) (no reported illness and no adverse test results)
2) "Private Advisories" to consumers in a known small universe (example: cow share owners)
3) "Public Advisories" to consumers in a public universe (example: retail sales outlets)
4) "Private Warnings" (cow share)
5) "Public Warnings" (retail sales)
6) "Private Suspension" (cow share)
7) "Public Suspension" (retail sales)
There may be more concepts which would be helpful to define, including concepts of time (i.e., how date of distribution/sale/consumption of product may relate to the date of an illness and to the date of a test sample).
Using these words, thus, it might be easier to talk about the subject of testing. For example, a "Quality Warn" test result (high coliform or high somatic cell count) coupled with "Healthy" illness reports (no reports of illness) would indicate "Normal" communication. Using another example, an "Unverified Illness Report" (single case with no confirming test) coupled with "Clean" test results might indicate "Normal Communication." On the other hand, a "Verified Outbreak Report" (multiple cases with confirmed test results, but no link to the raw milk source) coupled with a "Single Pathogen Positive" might indicate "Private Warning" for cow shares ("Public Warning" for retail sales) which would warn consumers to dispose of any product pending further verification. A "Verified Linked Outbreak Report" (same as before, but now linked to the raw milk source) coupled with a "Single Pathogen Positive" would indicate a Suspension (Private or Public) until the problem could be rectified. The most interesting discussions, as Blair suggests, will occur in the middle zone, since the extremes are always easy.
Again, all I’m trying to do here is to provide a matrix of words and concepts to guide a discussion. There would undoubtedly be spirited discussion around these concepts, but it would be helpful I think to bring a little discipline into play.
The following 11 Great Thoughts (11GT) (modified and updated) are offered again as "targets" for further discussion. As before, they are an attempt to synthesize some of the major issues and discussion currents which have been flowing:
1) Mark McAfee’s Citizens Petition to FDA on interstate raw milk shipments is modeled on Ron Paul’s original Resolution, which has now been joined (replaced? not sure) by HR 778. The new resolution is intended to get FDA totally out of regulating interstate commerce in raw milk simply based on its lack of pasteurization. If, as I suspect, FDA at some level really would like to get out of regulating this tiny raw milk market, they would not really get out of the business if they implemented the Citizens Petition as it is presently drafted since the Petition bakes in a high level of both state and federal regulation.
2) There should be some kind of consistent identification of raw milk and raw milk products coupled with standard warning language, whether basic such as current restaurant-style warnings, or more elaborate such as current California warnings.
3) Claims for health benefits may be made by any customer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of personal testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers; or by the producer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of a statistically accurate summary of unsolicited customer testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers.
4) Sales at retail (where the consumer by definition is remote from the producer) should be regulated under state law.
5) Transactions (whether sales, cow shares or otherwise depending on state law) direct from farmer to consumer whether on the farm or otherwise, or from farmers with herds smaller than a yearly-average [100] milking cows, should not be regulated other than by individual agreement.
[Model here for application to the feds, which should be ample precedent for a similar exemption of raw milk, is the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (Pub. L. 91-597, 84 Stat.1620 et seq.) which exempts eggs direct farm-to-consumer or any sales from flocks of less than 3000 birds. At the state level, some states permit sales to various degrees and at the other extreme, some few prohibit all kinds of raw milk transactions; these issues will have to be dealt with at the state level.]
6) Parents are free to feed their children whatever foods they choose.
7) Farmers and individuals who provide raw milk or raw milk products to "others" should have legal protection in litigation (absent reckless behavior or actual knowledge of pathogens or other significant risk factors) so long as the proper identification and warnings (as in, #2) were provided and, in the case of "others" who are minors, so long as the identification and warnings were effectively communicated to the minor’s parent or guardian prior to consumption.
8) Educational materials (directed to both producers and consumers) for the safe production, handling and processing of raw milk and raw milk products should be developed and widely distributed generally and in the producer’s advertising and sales media.
9) An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.
10) Independent research (including analyses of testimonials and other real-life evidence as well as traditional reductionist studies) should be publicly funded to examine the nutritional value, environmental impacts of production, and the acute and chronic impacts on human health from raw and traditional foods and from industrially-produced foods.
11) Broader insurance availability for producers and other risk-sharing approaches should be developed as a counterweight to regulation-by-litigation.
[Farmers might consider voluntary production standards such as various kinds of testing protocols or simply rely on many years of problem-free operation, so as to induce insurers to write policies, otherwise the insurers will want to "go automatic" and insist on compliance with various regulations which is their current typical mode. Similarly, a litigation defense which is founded in compliance with the testing protocols of a voluntary standard or in decades of trouble-free operation by simply "looking at the animals and watching what’s in the filter," should help to defend against litigation, and ultimately, to reduce litigation’s attractiveness simply because problems are so rare. It is a truism, that what insurance companies want most, is to write insurance where it is not really needed, since that’s the most profitable way to write insurance. As David points out, since we don’t really know how many people drink raw milk, we really don’t have any idea of the denominator and thus cannot calculate the real incidence of raw milk disease outbreaks.]
It is The waste products(toxins) that bacteria produce that have the ability to make us sick if they are produced in sufficient quantity.If we are worried about the toxins that bacteria produce,why don’t we worry about the toxic chemicals that are used in food production.These toxins are as much a part of the food we eat as the bacteria.Do we test for these chemical residues?
A reasonable goal would be to have a healthy(stable) gut microbial community that can absorb a few insults of invading bacteria or toxic chemicals and recover quickly.Abundance of microbes and diversity of species is what gives us this stability.We establish this abundance and diversity by eating foods from healthy soils(soils with a stable community of microbes).We can destroy the abundance and diversity by eating food from sick soil that has been treated with microbe killing chemicals,pasteurized,irradiated,fumigated and processed into foods that are preserved with more antibacterial chemicals
If we find salmonella or some other "pathogen" in some food,Have we really found the culprit or is it just that salmonella is associated with foods from soils that are treated with chemicals that kill nematodes?And when someone gets sick from say, peanuts couldn’t it be the chemical residue in the peanut that upsets the microbial balance in someones gut?
All of the testing for "pathogens" is a distraction from understanding why we really get sick from foods occasionally.The more we learn about the microbes that live on and inside us,the clearer it becomes that if we feed and nurture them they will protect us from the many insults that we suffer in our lives.
from: http://www.opednews.com/articles/YOUR-COMMENTS-to-the-USDA-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090201-515.html
it appears the usda has been up late planning a way to make nais mandatory via a round about slight of hand tactic…. but why should we be surprised, this is how our gov’t (that includes regulators by the way) works.
i’m with robert for his comment about being half past pitchforks.
this "plam" to destroy local farming and real/healthy food isn’t going to just go away because "we" don’t want it. it’s going to happen. i don’t believe there is anyway (using debate or conversation or compromise. or being civil or polite) will get our message across. i believe it will come to a very ugly head in the next few years.
all you clowns (yes that’s exactly what you are) who want to force feed us propaganda and dogma had better get ready, you’ll not be welcomed by the mobs that you helped create when the people finally get fedup with the bullshit gov’t and big agri corps (you know who you are monsanto) are force feeding the masses.
as history will remind you the masses always win in the end, and it’s always bloody and ugly, why will it be any different this time. while i hope to be gone from this earth before the fan gets splattered, i really don’t believe that i will be.
those who insist on civil discourse are those who are stealing our rights (or worse they are puppets of the system who if they’d actually do the research themselves would/could know the truth, but they don’t even try to know the truth… they are sorry lap dogs to the bitter end)
gathering here to discuss the issues in a friendly tea and crumpets way serves as nothing but a distraction to what we should and need to be doing… at the very least we ALL need to be practicing civil disobedience.
we all KNOW what is happening, we read the details day after day… we get all concerned and "enraged" but never engaged… cows need milking, horses need feed, pigs need water, chickens need tending…. there’s barely enough time left to read this blog, let alone get out and do some serious protesting or organizing….
no more compromise, no more mr. nice guy approach, IT ISN"T WORKING!!!!!!!
force the issue, make the regulator leave your property, force the police to get warrents, make them expend resources, time and your neighbors (tax) money to enforce these completely illegal rules and regulations.
liberty isn’t given to those who ask for it. liberty in taken by those who insist on it.
if we don’t take it we’ll all be sitting (being less civil i imagine) here talking about it until this blog or the whole internet comes under gov’t censorship.
remember that "they" want us to stay engaged in these meaningless debates, with our focus drawn here we’re not able to effectively engage them where we might have a chance of being heard.
Our Executive branch, congress, state governments, regulators, etc. have pockets to line with our hard earned cash. One of the many things they don’t want this money spent on is nutrient dense foods.
I have had enough!!!
Blair – thanks for sharing again, in more detail, the Colorado model for quality and safety of raw milk. Your system seems simple and scaled to the size of your industry. Perhaps other industries could learn from the transparency, and communication between dairies and vet consultants/CSU that you describe. I cannot recall the last time CO raw dairies had any significant problems with regulators, seems like it has been awhile (correct me if I’m wrong). A measure of success, or are your regulators lazy, lol?
Steve – I need to digest your intriguing post. Part 3 on communication looks great. There are some potential problems with how you define pathogen and indicator tests. But, for a lawyer, a good first try, IMHO. More later, if HB and Co. don’t chase me off this blog 🙂
Hugh and others – maybe some on this list would enjoy "tea and crumpets" (+/- raw milk cream) to hash this out. Then there are others like you that prefer to fight. Are you drawn to the raw milk movement only because it represents a place to pick a fight? I cannot see how civil disobedience is helping the situation…or resulting in any wins other than some media coverage – which will turn around and bite your butt if there’s an outbreak and the industry cannot show good faith and practices. From what I can tell, CO has designed a good program and good "cover," similar to what Steve B. is outlining in a more formal/complicated, lawyer-like way…
Sylvia, your questions are valid, but not really related to the major discussion here. Pasteurization "corrects" the problem with the pathogens on the non-raw dairies. No doubt, the pathogens are prevalent in the milk – there is literature showing they are present whether talking about big or small farms. MAP is a looming question – its relationship to Crohn’s disease remains controversial, as well as the question of whether the heat "kill" step destroys the bacteria. It is not black and white, but deserves more attention; however, there is enough controvery that folks would be naive to think they can blame all Crohn’s on pasteurized milk. That would be ridiculous. The situation is much more complex.
Most of your questions appear to relate to animal welfare, and I hear ya. This area is huge in the animal ag industry today – they have been "forced" to address it after Hallmark and other horrible examples. The livestock industry can no longer hide from the cruel situations that are pervasive on the CAFOs. But, do not be fooled, I’ve seen similarly cruel behavior toward livestock on small farms, not as systematic. You said you come from CA. Seen those "happy cow" commercials showing pasture-based holsteins? I’m not a PETA fan, but was shocked when they lost the case relating to fraud (not sure if that’s the right lawyer word) – how can they put those commercials on across the nation, when "we" know how most dairy cows/calves/bulls live – the "girls" are not on green pastures flirting with bulls across the fence? They are fighting foot abscesses, endless boredom, having their calves dragged away into crates, and they must rest/sleep in their poop.
FYI – Dean Florez is looking at these things…appears he dropped raw milk, but animal welfare is a priority this year so he says:
http://dist16.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={5E36B143-3FBF-4945-AD03-0BAE9ED9CB67}&DE={A9F47739-49D0-466E-B54F-2723736602CB}
Thanks you Steve. You bring rational sensibility to this topic. I hope your 11 GTs get noticed by those who are in power to make decisions about raw milk. I would like to mention that California does not list children on the warning label. I think children needs to be added, especially due to the vulnerability of E.coli 0157:H7 and HUS. The type of cells that are attacked are located in the kidneys, pancreas and the brain. Im writing from memory, but the laymans summary of the research is these cells are not fully mature/developed until the teens or adulthood. This is why children are so vulnerable to the damage caused by HUS.
Thank you Lykke for the contribution you are making to this blog.
Thank you Miguel and Ken. I value your expertise on gut health. Maybe the two of you could volunteer to be research guinea pigs. You could consume raw milk after pathogens have been injected in to it (one at a time) and well see what your immune system does with it.
cp
When soil is treated with biocides,when equiptment is cleaned with biocides and at every step of the process steps are taken to kill microbes,the ones that survive are taking the blame for illness that is very likely caused by all of these biocides accumulating in the food.Once in our gut ,these toxins kill both our beneficial microbes and the cells lining the gut.
The salmonella in the peanuts matches the salmonella in the stool because it was resistant to those toxic biocides.If there were no biocides used in the whole process from soil to gut,I would bet my life that the same salmonella would not cause any illness.It would be kept in check by our beneficial gut bacteria.
Healthy soil contains the bacteria I want in my gut.Killing bacteria at every step of the process,selects for an unbalanced community of microbes,but all of the toxins used in the process does the damage to our gut that gives this unbalanced community of microbes the opening to establish itself.Now we have replaced our healthy microbial community with a disease causing (out of balance) microbial community.Food poisoning symptoms are our bodies trying to get rid of these invaders along with the dead bodies of our beneficial bacteria and our gut lining cells that were killed by those toxins.
If this is true,then what good does it do us to know that our food does or does not contain a "pathogen"?I would like to know ,however,what toxic chemicals were used in its production from soil to final product.This is what we need to know about our food.
Yes,the presence or absence of any particular "pathogen" in my food is of no concern to me.Give me food that won’t kill my gut flora or kill the cells that line my gut.
I have already done your experiment many times.Whenever a cow has any kind of abnormal milk,I taste it to see if I can identify the microbe that is causing the problem.Different "pathogens" have different waste products which have different flavors.Some of these flavors actually are much appreciated in wine and cheese.Dairy farmers consume regular doses of manure too, over the years.Some children have even been known to take a warm egg from under a hen,poke a hole in one end and suck the contents out of the shell,when they are collecting the eggs for the house.
I am not drawn to the raw milk issue to pick a fight. Cooking meals for my family made from nutrient dense ingredients such as pastured poultry, eggs, meats and heirloom vegetables and topping this off with a glass of raw milk has become a way of life The big problem has to do with regulations that are currently in place that do not address a small farm situation but benefit a large confined industrial food model. You and others refuse to answer questions from others about how to clean up filthy confinement dairies.
Very few outbreaks of disease are found on small farms where animals are raised on lots of pasture, clean housing and fresh air. I have always been told that if you smell manure on a farm – you have a management problem. This is an old bit of knowledge that goes back many, many generations. The stench from Industrial farming is sickening. Have you ever been downwind from a poultry shed housing thousands of chickens?
Please, answer my question.
If you have would you ever eat or feed this meat to your family knowing that over half of the birds carry salmonella, campy, or something worse? Have you ever seen what these birds look like before they are processed – they have no feathers, can barely walk and have no beaks. The government thinks this is wonderful, healthy food.
Now picture this. I have a flock of heritage chickens that forage on my pastures. They take dust baths, lay in the sun, search out bugs and have a safe, clean place to roost at night. We butcher a few of these birds a month. The meat has a wonderful rich flavor and texture (like a game bird) with deeply yellow skin and a small amount of rich, yellow fat. Which chicken would you serve your family – the industrial chicken or mine?
It is the same with milk. My raw milk comes a local farm. The cows graze pastures that overlook the sea. In the spring, the milk has a wonderful grassy flavor with a hint of that sea. We have been drinking it for over three years and our health has never been better. I would much rather drink this milk than sterilized milk from filthy cows wallowing in thier own excrement.
I am mad because I want to have the freedom to choose what my family eats and not what the government "wants" me too. Regulations in the name of "Health, Safety and Welfare" have curtailed most of the freedoms people took for granted up to two generations ago.
Furthermore, we have far too much obesity, cancer, diabetes, asthma, autism, etc., etc., in this country. The blame for this is the silly food pyramid the government tells everyone to adhere to.
The current industrial food model started with this little blurb in the Congressional Record in 1971 Please see the following link:
http://www.themilkweed.com/Young%20Executives%20Report.pdf
Start on New Directions for US Agricultural policy. A chilling quote is on page 21737 it states this – "Agricultual policy should be directed towards maintaing agriculture as a viable industry and not as a way of life".
Hope this enlightens you on the reason for not partaking in your tea and crumpets mentality.
Kind regards,
Violet
I had the privilege of hearing Fred Kirschenmann speak this weekend, and one of the many things he mentioned in a 75 minute speech on the future of the small farm, was that Senator Florez in California has actually renamed the committee of which he is chair, the FOOD AND Agriculture Committee.
i don’t know of any animal who doesn’t eat soil from time to time, new calfs seem to seek out particular spots of soil and revisit them a few times in their first weeks of life. horses too, cats seem to eat soil when their stomach is upset.
so far i’ve had no milk issues but wouldn’t be surprised if should i ever have any i’ll smell it first in the mist over the milking bucket. thx for the insight.
human health is out of balance, the poor kids who are so at risk, aren’t so much at risk from real milk, they’re at risk from everything with mother natures’ fingerprints still on it. odds are it’s the kids who, as toddlers, aren’t/weren’t allowed to play in the dirt.
in the last year or so science/medicine has discovered what the appendix is for, it seems its function is like a seedbank for bacteria, when your gut flora is destroyed the appendix re-populates it. the appendix doesnt seem to accept new members after the first few years of life. those without an appendix or those deprived of a rich source of bacteria at a young age have to rely on what they ingest to replace all or some of their gut flora.
science, medicine, gov’t, and their combined ignorance has driven food ,agriculture and health pretty far off course. farming is not a factory operation that can keep trimming inputs to maximize profit. see the history of pasturized milk for the perfect example of this mentality.
now we have these "brainpans who were sold a bill of goods instead of given an education that included teaching them "how to learn" and the desire to learn the truth about their chosen path. but it proves the adage that the hardest thing for someone to learn is a subject that their job requires them to not understand.
should they be blamed for not reaching out and touching the world for themselves? i don’t know, it’s scary out here in reality. society really is out on a limb with the rush to inprove mother nature. she’s self balancing, our factory systems are not. science/agriculture has hit every pitfall possible on the path to self destruction. we unbalanced the system that evolved us to be in perfect balance with it. now we’re going to find a new balance thru science? medicine? sterilization? soon?
observational evidence and (not so) common sense tells us that what were doing to ourselves and our planet are bad, so what do we do? we make them worse were going the wrong way. those here that disagree have an agenda to push (a job requiring them to not understand) and while civil and nice is well. nice, they are only enabling the system to continue its current path.
I dont believe they can be reasoned with, they just dont get it . (it being freedom to choose)
what I care about is the destruction of liberties they cause everyone else to suffer. give up all the rights you wish in your pursuit of 100% safety guys and gals. but. leave mine alone. without these liberties we cant even help right this ship.
were being eliminated from the game because local is becoming a religion and high fructose corn syrup is out and god forbid if the people find out that real milk is really safe and really good for you and really good too. theyll have lost all hope of maintaining the status quo. the cat will be out of the bag.
Please, answer my question. "
Yup, they stick. As does propoganda from either side.
by prop[a]ganda do you mean truth, or cold hard truth. or is there no thuth but instead just two sides?
how is it propaganda to force into the daylight what has happened to american "agriculture" while everyone who eats was too busy to notice.
how is it not propaganda for tyson to tell us their chickens are "free range" when what they did was cut-in a 1’x1′ doorway to a penned dirt lot off the warehouse where 100,000 chickens live shoulder to shoulder in ammonia soaked poo.
please elaborate…
We taste the milk from each teat at least once a week.If the taste is not sweet,we know some sort of bacteria is converting that sugar into something else,so that milk doesn’t go into the tank.If a teat isn’t sweet in our weekly test,we taste it every day until it is consistently sweet.This way we are not testing for "pathogens" but for excellent quality milk.That is what goes into the tank to be drank by people.Any time a cow is under stress it is a good time to pay close attention to the taste of the milk.We have noticed that an unusually heavy rain will sometimes cause off flavor in the milk.After regular tasting for a while,you will get to know which teats are most likely to have problems.These can be quickly and easily checked every milking.Sometimes the first few squirts aren’t sweet but the milk becomes sweet after milking out several squirts.It might be that some bacteria has gotten into the teat canal but has been successfully prevented from getting further into the udder.Cows are very good at dealing with these small bacterial invasions.They make antibodies against that particular bacterium and pass those onto us in the milk so our immune systems are strengthened when this sort of contamination occurs.Most of the time an off flavored taste in the milk dissapears in a day or two.These small changes in flavor occur long before an infection would make the milk appear abnormal or before anything would show positive on a california mastitis test.
David,
I would hope that the farmer retest the milk and inform those who bought it to be watchful. There still hasnt been an answer to the question of; why are the authorities using extreme force to go after the little farmer? I doubt it will be answered.
To maintain healthy bodies; good gut health, healthy animals/soil, etc. are needed to continue to be healthy, not sterilizing food, or adding chemicals on or in the food, or irradiating food, or changing the natural DNA makeup of the food.
, your questions are valid, but not really related to the major discussion here. Pasteurization "corrects" the problem with the pathogens on the non-raw dairies. No doubt, the pathogens are prevalent in the milk
I beg to differ, my questions are valid to this conversation. Pasteurization does not correct the problem. If it did then many out breaks of pasteurized products would not have occured over the last 30 plus yrs. The horrid conditions at the factory daries only increase the problems more so. If the pathogens are so prevalent in the raw milk, then why arent the 40000 plus who consume it in CA ill?
There are a few small dairies on Franklin Blvd. that has been there since before the 1960s. The cows have lived standing in their own excrement. Since they have signs hanging on the road side for Crystal milk company. . These dairies have approximately 50 head, not large at all. Yet, they are allowed to produce milk from a toxic environment, most likely from cows that require numerous shots/antibiotics and sell it to the masses. There are larger dairies along Hwy 99 and I-5, the stench and contamination are horrendous.
I believe a lot of the anger that is directed towards the govt entities is because our freedoms are being taken away. If someone wishes to consume something, then that is their choice, not the govts or anyone else. I agree with those who oppose the chemically ladened phoods the govt and businesses push on us. Each weekend, the farmers market gets busier and busier. Each time there is contamination, especially wide spread, it only increases those who come to the farmers market.
I dont see the govt working with the small sustainable farmer. Our govt regulators are owned by big business, and he who has the most $$$ makes the rules.
What Migel states about healthy soil producing healthy food is very true yet such a way of thinking escapes the health and agricultural bureaucrats militaristic reasoning based on control through chemicals, drugs, bioengineer plants and organisms and of course the strong arm of the law.
Willfully or not I too have engaged in numerous experiments over the years.
As an example, I purchased ten pullets a little less then a year ago at local bird auction, metal cage included. After having released the chickens I rolled the cage to one side (which had seen its share of chicken poop) and in so doing one of the spring steel hooks used to latch one of the gates punctured right through the webbing between my index finger and thumb damaging a tendon in the process. I had to step over the cage and give my hand a half turn to extract the hook. I washed the wound with soap and water and applied a dressing yet by evening my hand and lower arm was red hot and extremely swollen. After three days and after having applied several activated charcoal poultices the swelling was gone and my hand had become extremely itchy.
Ken Conrad
miguel, I have a question for you:
As you say, Cows are very good at dealing with these small bacterial invasions.They make antibodies against that particular bacterium and pass those onto us in the milk so our immune systems are strengthened when this sort of contamination occurs.
So wouldnt it be better to allow that milk to pass to consumers, and only withhold it when a more dire threshold is met (perhaps when there are signs that the cow is not properly handling it)?
By the way, Ive noticed a mild off-flavor in our cows milk from time to time that I would call not right, but not not sweet either. Basically the milk at those times is still sweet, but theres something different in there. Ive always attributed it to a new plant growing in the pasture, and I guess that may be true at times, but I never considered the possibiility that it could be an indicator of subclinical microbial invasion.
Thanks for your continued insights.
http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/grading.html#microbial
Ken Conrad
Babies Know: A Little Dirt Is Good for You
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27brod.html?no_interstitial
"In studies of what is called the hygiene hypothesis, researchers are concluding that organisms like the millions of bacteria, viruses and especially worms that enter the body along with "dirt" spur the development of a healthy immune system. Several continuing studies suggest that worms may help to redirect an immune system that has gone awry and resulted in autoimmune disorders, allergies and asthma.
These studies, along with epidemiological observations, seem to explain why immune system disorders like multiple sclerosis, Type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, asthma and allergies have risen significantly in the United States and other developed countries.
Training the Immune System
"What a child is doing when he puts things in his mouth is allowing his immune response to explore his environment," Mary Ruebush, a microbiology and immunology instructor, wrote in her new book, Why Dirt Is Good (Kaplan). "Not only does this allow for ‘practice’ of immune responses, which will be necessary for protection, but it also plays a critical role in teaching the immature immune response what is best ignored."
………..snip……….
Dr. Weinstock goes even further. Children should be allowed to go barefoot in the dirt, play in the dirt, and not have to wash their hands when they come in to eat, he said. He and Dr. Elliott pointed out that children who grow up on farms and are frequently exposed to worms and other organisms from farm animals are much less likely to develop allergies and autoimmune diseases."
——————————
Interesting article about bioluminescent bacteria symbiotic with squid:
http://www.physorg.com/news152720475.html
Our mitochondria were originally bacteria, IIRC. It really seems to me that germophobia is a propaganda campaign hatched by Big Ag to put small farmers out of business.
…………..
Thanks for the Cong. Record link, Violet Willis. Chilling.
…………..
Ugh. Just popped into my head. Is Sharon Palmer at risk of the ‘three strikes’ law? Could this be a reason they’re going after her, in particular? It seems that the various state Ag Depts pick their marks for maximum scare and propaganda effect. But since they lack all empathy they are clueless about how much sympathy their victims engender among us, which energizes the push-back.
The cow’s teat and udder are designed to sample the environmental bacteria and produce antibodies to it.This is happening all of the time even when no taste difference is detectable.When we do detect a taste difference,almost always the taste difference is only in the milk in the teat.When we detect off flavor in the teat milk,we milk it out 4 or 5 squirts and taste it again.Usually it tastes fine at this point.Sometimes a few more squirts are needed to get back to sweet milk.The milk in the udder that tastes sweet does contain antibodies to the bacteria that made the milk in the teat taste off flavored.The milk in the teat can be fed to the cats, the milk from her udder is milk that we can put in the bulk tank.We hold back milk if the off flavor does not dissapear after some milking.The milk in the udder,when it is sweet,contains the antibodies to the bacteria but does not contain the bacteria.We don’t want to add bacteria to the bulk tank that gives the milk an off flavor for obvious reasons.It will shorten the time that we can keep the milk and still have the flavor that we want in the milk.
Now these are the sorts of exchanges I can enjoy all day!
Can an organism that sometimes is referred to as a "pathogen" also at times have a positive influence in the community of organisms that it is a member of?Is a "pathogen" always and necessarily acting as a cause of disease?
One more question: Do you believe those antibodies are dispersed through out the entire udder, or only the quarter?
********
Obviously, what miguel and Ken and others are talking about here is how we can become healthy, as opposed to merely managing our illnesses. This is very, very meaningful and important! We are easily suckered into similar talk of achieving health within the context of our current agribusiness, medical, educational, and regulatory paradigm, but thats all lip service as long as the current, failed health model persists. (Recall Lykkes recent statement to the effect that she agrees with miguel that good gut health, healthy animals/soil, etc. are all important things to strive for [but] none of these things, including pathogens, exist in a vacuum. Lykke here is saying essentially that, sure, we should all work for healthy soils and animals, as long as we dont REALLY think that those things will make us healthy, or God forbid, cause us to eliminate the current disease management model. So it goes with all conversations and negotiations with those who still believe in the current paradigm. How could it be otherwise?)
Personally, I do not find benefit in discussing how we might tinker with the current systems. So heres an alternative (Ill call it Daves one great thought): Allow people to bypass the current systems if they wish. Think of it as an experiment. Allow the miguels and Kens and their customers to live their lives according to their own principles, without interference from government or big business. Watch what happens. See if those folks suffer significantly fewer autoimmune diseases, chronic degenerative diseases, infectious diseases, cancers. (That would be a far better and more human experiment than cps idea of feeding so-called pathogens to Ken and miguel to see what happens.)
My bet is that when the truth is known, the tide will turn. Only then.
At 68 years old I HAD very severe GI problems as a result of the SAD which included the consuming a lot the filthy boiled approved dairy products.
By rejecting the SAD, by rejecting boiled filthy dairy products , by rejecting all meds and consuming lots of raw milk, raw cream, raw butter, raw kefir and real food, I have none of the prior pain or in ability to digest food. Plus not one penny spent on any doctor no medical oversite at all. That was 4 1/2 years ago when my recovery began.
My DW and I are are a stark contrast to 5 couples who our friends which are the same age. One lady is awaiting a lung transplant, another lady has had 2 back operations but needs drugs to mute the constant pain, another lady is gonig to have a second knee replacement on the same knee, a man has had bypass heart operation, another man has had cataracts removed and a knee replacement, one lady has blood clot problems constant weight change and diabetes. The medicare cost for our friends is enormus, the medicare cost for us zero, zero and zero.
SAD = sickness, disease, hospitals, nursing homes with the final cost of the health care system being 16% of US GDP or $2.3 trillion dollars. It would only take a tiny fraction of this money to prove the benefits of raw dairy. However the health care industry has a vested interest in keeping it going and growing does it not? Just MHO
"Can an organism that sometimes is referred to as a "pathogen" also at times have a positive influence in the community of organisms that it is a member of?"
A pathogen with a positive influence? We call that Botox derived from the deadly botulinum toxin! Seriously, depends on the host, the environment…are you familiar with "bacteria talk (quorum sensing)?" Bacterial communities ("pathogens" or not) use chemical signals (auto-inducers) to relay information about their populations, and modify their "behavior" based on these signals – such as forming a biofilm. Some of these changes might be considered positive (that is a very "human" perspective).
Quorum Sensing: Fact, Fiction, and Everything in Between
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17869606
"Is a "pathogen" always and necessarily acting as a cause of disease?"
No, depends on the strain, host and the environment again. This paper has a table of traditional definitions across the spectrum.
Host-Pathogen Interactions: Basic Concepts of Microbial Commensalism, Colonization, Infection, and Disease
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/68/12/6511
There are numerous strains of Listeria monocytogenes, but only a few that appear to cause disease in humans. Many of the foodborne "pathogens" in livestock manure do not cause any illness/disease in the animal – they are not "pathogens" for the animals.
Speaking of paradigm changes, there are scientists evaluating how bacterial QS might be used/manipulated in a clinical context. Or, looking at immune modulation as an alternative to antibiotics/vaccinations. As an example, is Pseudomonas aeruginosa a pathogen? It is common in the environment and harmless to most people who breath or swallow it. But, it causes a serious lung infection in cystic fibrosis patients.
The role of quorum sensing in chronic cystic fibrosis Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections
http://tinyurl.com/bk2p28
If a micro-organism can be considered disease causing in one environment and not disease causing in another environment,given the proper environment wouldn’t any micro-organism overpopulate until it’s waste products reach a toxic level?Would it then be considered a pathogen?It would seem that you agree with the idea that disease is caused by the microbes’ environment(the terrain) rather than by the microbe itself.Is it true??