There’s an interesting phenomenon going on now around raw milk. It is gradually, but very definitely, moving more toward the mainstream. Increasingly, the media are writing more objectively, the latest example being Jill Richardson’s even-handed assessment of the politics of raw milk on Alternet.
One of the things that tends to happen as you move from the fringes to the mainstream, though, is that you tend to come under increasing public scrutiny. We’ve seen one example in the intense focus on the outsourcing practices of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., which Jill Richardson’s article highlighted (and continues to be a subject of intense debate on my most recent couple of postings).
We see another example in the four-part series comparing raw and pasteurized milk that has unfolded on the blog of food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler, who is close to many state and federal regulators, and has been notable for his anti-raw-milk stance in the past.
I have commented previously about two other parts, since they have been notable for the depth and detail of their assessments, and for their acknowledgments of a number of arguments made by raw milk advocates—for example, that milk intended to be sold unpasteurized is invariably handled differently than, the conventional supply intended for pasteurization (even if they are, overall, less than supportive of raw milk).
Now, Part 4 of the series was just posted, and it is similarly notable for its depth of analysis. It assesses data about illnesses according to pathogens from raw and pasteurized milk, and concludes that while raw milk is implicated in more cases of campylobacter and E.coli O157:H7, there hasn’t been a single case of listeriosis from raw milk between 2001 and 2007 (which makes me wonder even further why the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets has been so tough in going after a handful of permitted raw dairies about supposed findings of listeria monocytogenes).
More significant, it goes even further in its acceptance of raw milk than the other sections. In certain respects, it seems another slam, as it heavily criticizes the Weston A. Price Foundation for promoting health claims about raw milk and for challenging public health findings about raw milk outbreaks.
But a careful reading of the piece reveals a new level of scrutiny, suggesting a previously unknown level of acceptance. For example, it explores milk labeling in California, pointing out that labels of raw milk show no significant differences in key vitamins compared to pasteurized milk. (Maybe Mark McAfee, or another raw dairy producer, can help educate us on why the similarities.) This is something I hadn’t been aware of before, given all the emphasis by proponents on raw milk’s nutritional value. (I’m sure part of the issue here is that key nutrients contained in raw milk, like enzymes and good bacteria, aren’t accounted for in the standard ingredients and vitamin labels.)
It also explores such issues as taste and value. Indeed, it comes across as something of a consumer guide to assessing different kinds of milk.
Finally, and perhaps most important, it conveys an assumption that raw milk is here to stay, as a mainstay of our dairy options. Some of this may have to do with the fact that the piece focuses on the California market, where raw dairy products are sold at retail, but it represents a much different tone coming from sources like the Marler Blog than existed even a year ago.
It concludes with a warning to consumers to avoid black market milk. That’s an interesting warning, since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in pushing so hard to stamp out all sales and other distribution of raw milk, in effectis doing its best to make it primarily a black market item.
***
Jill Richardson of Lavidalocavore blog, during a tour of Tierra Miguel Farm, near San Diego, as part of Symposium on Food Systems and Public Health. Raw milk wasn’t a scheduled topic of discussion at a food safety symposium I attended in San Diego for several days this week, but it came up anyway, and in a surprising way. (I guess at this point, I shouldn’t be surprised at anything involving raw milk.) The occasion was a keynote address by Michael Taylor, a senior adviser on food safety at the FDA.
I found intriguing his effort to link food and health in assessing safety and the importance of food. “Abundance is not enough, but people need access to foods that can contribute to healthy diets,” he said. “It’s important to prevent food-borne illness, but also to maintain public confidence. The last thing you want is for people to stop buying fruits and vegetables.”
Interesting notion, this idea that healthy foods help maintain good health. But then during a brief question period, an attendee launched into an assault. “We used to have access to raw milk, no longer. We used to be able to order rare meat, no longer…” The man wondered if leafy greens would be next on the FDA’s attack list, presumably through stronger requirements for irradiation. Taylor seemed not to understand the accusations, or the question. “The food supply has never been pristine, or antiseptic,” he began, and then seemed to mumble something as he exited the stage, and quickly left the event. The idea that the FDA is indeed pushing toward sanitation of the food supply was something Taylor didn’t want to deal with.
The verbiage coming out of the FDA and other food safety organizations is definitely shifting. There was lots of talk at the San Diego conference about “sustainability,” supporting “local food systems,” and the benefits of farmers markets. How deeply do they believe such verbiage?
By the way, I got to meet Jill Richardson, author of the Alternet article mentioned earlier on, and founder of the Lavidalocavore blog–she attended part of the symposium that included a tour of a local veggie and fruit farm committed to sustainable practices. She didn’t seem fazed by her introduction to the raw milk enthusiasts via dozens of comments on her Alternet article. She’s pictured above.
***
I just returned to the East Coast from San Diego, on my way to Charlottesville, VA, to speak at a special book signing event tomorrow (Saturday) evening with Joel Salatin (sponsored by the Virginia Independent Copnsumer and Farmer Association). If you’re in the area, stop in and say hello.
Illness FOLLOWED drinking raw milk from local dairy
"the settlement is confidential and neither party is allowed to talk about the specifics"
I personally do not want to know about the settlement but in my paleo thought process I do wonder how freedom and justice for all ALL is served by secrecy. Who benefits none but the lawyers in my paleo opinion. Have we reached the point in our history where we are totally governed from behind closed doors and all we see in public is little more than a dog and pony show?
One of the really good things about David’s book is that it too shines some much-needed light on events of the past, even as he worries about the future of choice. This kind of common understanding benefits all participants in the discussion – even the tentative efforts by regulators to come to the party. The vignette of Taylor was interesting in this respect, since everyone needs to evolve in their thinking before the light overcomes the heat in the dialogue (or, in the case of FDA, the lack of dialogue)..
You are every bit a part of the slow evolution of raw milk as any other producer consumer and or advocate. Good media is critical and you are doing a great job.
Yes you are correct. The nutritional labels on raw milk and pastuerized milk are practically the same…save for some vitamins shown on pastuerized milk because they are added artificially after processing. The nutritional elements required be posted on the labels conveniently are missing all of the enzymes and bioactive elements.
According to Dr. Bruce German who conducted the history making Milk Genome research at UC Davis….the bioactive components are extremely important to the overall immune system value of milk ( my words ). There is something about the science of truth. You can not bend it or lie about it….the truth always come back arround. This is found in the mass exodus of consumption of pastuerized milk ( enter soy, rice, almond and god knows what other white milk like substances mascarading as milk ). This is found in the testimonials of those brave pioneering consumers that drink raw milk. This is found in the science of breast milk and yes,….bovine raw milk. There is no escaping it. It is the enzymes, oligosacharides, antibodies, biodiversity of bacteria, viruses all contained in a living sustrate….that food which defines us as mammals. Life giving RAW MILK that comes from mammals.
So the labels just show: fat, sugar, ( maybe some vitamins ) and protein….not much to go on if you want to know about the "whole food" not just the FDA aproved heat surviving elements.
Today I speak to 50 people in Apple Valley CA ( a Raw Milk Presentation )…many are from Las Vegas and travel hudreds of miles to bring home raw milk to the dry state of Nevada.
Perhaps soon the reality of the denial of raw milk rights and raw milk madness will be appreciated by the new blood in the FDA and things will change. When people speak up and demand that the FDA discuss raw milk in seminars like last week in San Diego with Mr. Taylor….you can bet he is talking to his bosses and little by little the dialogue will change. The FDA is not crazy….they are a political machine. They will evolve as well.
The reason that the whole story does not emerge with the tragedy of the case of Campylobacter patient is becuase of liability insurance carriers. They want certainty and do not want a spectacle of the judicial system. They want to write a check and be done with it. That is what happened at OPDC and that is what happened with our good friends at the Alexander Dairy. Insurance keeps these stories from being fully told. For better or worse…thats the way it is.
Keep on writing the good stuff….you are the "compass rose" of raw milk media change. You show true north when others just wonder endlessly and stumble arround mindlessly.
Say hi to Joel for me…
Mark
I’ve seen numerous claims on raw milk sites that say pasteurization destroys Vitamin A and C. But, the labels show that the 3 milks all had the same amount of Vitamin A (6%). Vitamin C percentages were 0% for the raw milk and 2-4% for the pasteurized milk.
Why is there a small amount of Vitamin C in the pasteurized product and none in the raw milk (is this a lab error)? Certainly milk doesn’t "grow" a little bit of Vitamin C after heating. These small amounts are not relevant, but I’m curious about the difference. It also seems misleading to tell consumers that heating causes big differences in these 2 vitamins when milk isn’t even a good source of them.
If nutrients aren’t changed during pasteurization, then why is milk fortified?
If all these non-govt web sites are lieing about raw milk, why hasn’t the govt shut them down? Who is misleading whom?
http://www.rockwellnutrition.com/assets/images/BreastMilk_RawMilk_vs_Infant_Formula.pdf
http://www.dairycouncilofca.org/Milk-Dairy/Milk.aspx
http://livingawholelife.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-raw-milk-more-nutritious_16.html
http://www.rockwellnutrition.com/Can-I-use-Goat-Milk-instead-of-infant-formula_ep_92-1.html#difference
http://www.realmilk.com/whichchoose.html
Interesting, given the source.
Bob Hayles
http://www.juicymaters.com
That still doesn’t answer my question. The raw milk label say 0% vitamin C. I don’t see how raw milk advocates can make a big deal about pasteurization destroying vitamin C if it isn’t there to begin with. I am not a nutritionist, so just looking for some clarification.
According to some web sites there is Vit C in milk.
http://www.dairycouncilofca.org/Milk-Dairy/Milk.aspx
The dairy council of CA wouldn’t lie would they?
According to this web site there is Vit C in milk. As to the labels, ask the company for your answers.
We have seen many errant ( either intensional or by ommission or commission….not sure ) product labels. A great example is the a Kombucha brand. The statements on the nutritional label do not even come close to the contents. We have checked and we know.
I think Sylvia has done a great job of providing some reference and guidance on this issue.
Even when a small amount of a substance may appear in our products…there are very complicated standards to be followed with regards to thresholds and claims for the content of that element. It is far from a simple matter.
Mark
You make a very good point. I will look into this and get back to the blog about the Vit C issue. Our lab results should tell us about this. This was something I scratched my head about years ago…it is worth revisiting. We do not make up our labels…we do not want the liability and use professionals to get it right.
A thought on Outsourcing….where is the line? Is there a line…???
If we ( OPDC ) never outsourced anything….we would make no cheese. We need salt and cultures and enzymes ( renet ) to make cheese from our own raw milk.
If we never outsourced anything…we would not make cultured butter…we need Flora Danica cultures to make raw cultured butter with our raw milk.
If we never outsourced anything…we would have no labels or bottle caps or containers to put our products into. Must we have a plastics plant and an oil well….to not be an outsourcer??
I we never outsourced anything….we would not make chocolate milk….chocolate is a south american product.
If we never outsourced anything…we would not make Kombucha. We need the organic cane sugar and tea and neither of these things are grown in CA ( as far as I know ).
We outsource salts and minerals for our cows…..this is an act of outsourcing.
We outsource seeds for our pastures and power to run our pumps and propane to heat our water. We outsource for tractors and trucks and uniforms and computers and cell phones.
If you object to outsourcing ….then why do you buy groceries at a store…you should grow 100% of your own food in your own garden. Buying groceries is an ultimate act of outsourcing. What about the seeds for your garden….would you outsource them??
Putting gas in your car is an act of outsourcing and is killing young Americans ( and other innocent human beings ).
Outsourcing is a normal and essential act and has been practiced for all time.
Some food for thought for our anti-outsourcing friends.
No outsourcing….you starve and freeze. Outsourcing is our economy and our world. It allows specialization and niching….even in the most remote 3rd world reality.
Mark
"Should the government educate? Yes…but truthfully, not scare tactics.
But that is it. Put the information about risks out there. Make sure the information is widely available. Do not allow producers to commit fraud by making false claims of supposed health benefits or discounting of risks."
And, I’m with Steve Bemis and CP regarding the warning labels. However, my major discomfort with changing regulations in Georgia or other places relates to the misinformation about the product. This includes food safety risks and unreasonable claims about nutrients and health benefits. I think these "problems" need to be worked out before some of us can transition out of the ideologies about raw milk bans and into a position more oriented toward treating raw milk like any other raw food. As Amanda Rose has said many times, this is about more than access: consumers must have correct information to make a truly informed choice.
The important point is that you or other producers source the products used in your products based on the same high standards. The massive recall this year due to contaminated peanut products involved 1000’s of products that sourced from one company with bad practices (including ignoring positive Salmonella tests in their raw product). Similarly, you should be concerned about the origin of your sourced products whether its chocolate or sugar or peanut paste (if you come out with a line of peanut butter ice cream, lets say).
IMO, raw milk or colostrum intended for pasteurization is never an appropriate source for use in commercial, unprocessed raw milk products (including butter, cheese, kefir, colostrum) sold to consumers.
"IMO, raw milk or colostrum intended for pasteurization is never an appropriate source for use in commercial, unprocessed raw milk products (including butter, cheese, kefir, colostrum) sold to consumers."
You have expressed this sentiment before.
I’m sure you know of incidents where there has been evidence of significant harm to consumers. My own sense has been that these products are acceptably safe (to regulators and consumers). If I’m mistaken, I’d like to know – – so would you link to the evidence so that I can make a further assessment.
That comment related to using bulk tank milk from dairies producing milk intended for pasteurization. I’d like to believe that daries producing milk intended to be consumed raw take extra precautions because they don’t have the "kill step." Two different milks, right?
Regarding examples, they are numerous. First, there are many studies showing that bulk tank milk from conventional dairies contains pathogens (but pasteurization kills them). This milk is not appropriate for use as "commercial raw milk," even if its being turned into butter, cheese, kefir, or a mixed colostrum product. Second, there are many examples of this type of milk being used to make queso fresco cheeses resulting in serious outbreaks – skimming off the bulk tank and later using the milk at farmworker homes, or for sale through illegal door-to-door or small market operations. Third, there is the question about "outsourcing" at the time of the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to raw milk/colostrum in California – was that outbreak due to mixing of outsourced milk/colostrum with licensed, inspected product?
There are examples of outbreaks not related to using milk intended for pasteurization too, and unsanitary conditions during milking/bottling seem to be the culprit (see the Dee Creek example).
Although a long read, this series that David G. is discussing is a good source for many of the references you ask about.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/11/articles/lawyer-oped/comparing-the-food-safety-record-of-pasteurized-and-raw-milk-products-part-4/
But that is it. Put the information about risks out there. Make sure the information is widely available. Do not allow producers to commit fraud by making false claims of supposed health benefits or discounting of risks."
I would imagine that the majority feel this is as it should be regarding all potentially consumed foods. Unfortunately it isn’t the case.
David G. How was your trip to Joel Salatin’s farm? I’d like to see it some day.
But I did previously write something about Joel’s farm, complete with a photo slide show:
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2007/sb2007088_984272.htm
David
Sorry, I’ve gotten behind on reading all the health blog stuff I have on google reader, but the Raw Milk Facts web site does have a listing for vitamin C in raw milk:
http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/what_is_in_raw_milk.html
They give 19 mg per quart "approximate", which isn’t really very much compared to some plant sources. In fact, that’s rather interesting as it implies that young mammals don’t need much vitamin C. Human milk is a little higher in vitamin C than cow’s milk, but that may vary depending on the diet of the mother I suspect:
http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life.blogspot.com/2008/11/natures-perfect-food-certainly-for.html
(see the table near the bottom comparing nutrients in human, cow, and goat milk)
These measurements indicate about 5 mg/100g of vitamin C in human milk and less than 2 mg/100g in cow and goat milk.
Bryan