Ed Shank at his farm, The Family Cow. Ed Shank of The Family Cow in Pennsylvania, reported “good news” to his customers this afternoon.
“We just got the test results back from the lab literally minutes ago. Both samples taken different dates came back negative for Campy! Praise the Lord!”
Shank said he hopes to have milk back on the shelves tomorrow (Friday).
I just highlighted Shank’s unusual approach in an article at Grist.org, using it as an illustration of the trend of raw dairies to take the initiative on safety standards. I discuss in the article the efforts by Tim Wightman of the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation, along with that of Wisconsin dairyman Scott Trautman.
I know a number of readers here have reservations about the practical usefulness of what Ed Shank did via his testing protocols. I can’t comment expertly about the science of what he did, but I can say with much more confidence that in terms of promotion and publicity, he did more via his actions to potentially help the various legislative initiatives I described in my previous post than any other actions likely could.
By doing what he did so publicly, he has potentially taken the air out of the fear balloon so frequently floated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its minions at ag and public health departments around the country.
You want to grab the attention of a legislative committees considering one or another of the proposals to expand accessibility to raw milk? Then excerpt from a presentation put together by Scott Trautman a few weeks ago for a pow-wow on safety standards held at his Wisconsin dairy. It’s entitled “Raw Milk Safety at Trautman Family Farm”.
I especially like the “Foundational Premises” slide, including these points:
* “Respect the entire raw milk system”
* “Sanitation not sterilization”
* “Healthy animals, healthy milk”
* “Quality is safety”
My favorite quote: “I owe it to all in the movement to be an ambassador.”
I’m big on rights, but increasingly I sense that the path to rights flows through the safety issue. The fight over access to raw milk, indeed, access to nutrient-dense foods overall, is a war over attitudes and ideas. Right now, the attitude that predominates is fear. The best way to fight fear is with reassurance that you understand the fear, and are taking steps to reduce risk. Ed Shank and Scott Trautman understand that reality very well, and I believe are taking important steps to help the community of raw dairy producers gain business advantage. ?Farmers are business owners, and like all businesses, must find the business model that truly works for them and their customers.
The greatest marketing program is not a marketing program at all….it is instead a program of "education and action" through demonstrated ethics and in the case of raw milk that means food safety programs.
Congrats to Ed and his team !!! This was a great educational demonstration for all…most importantly the FDA. They need to see that we stand for demonstrated high standards and safety….sadly they still refuse to acknowledge that we even exist.
Mark
Why isn't there a fear in regards to the unhealthy processed foods? Or fear in regards to the chemicals in our drinking water? Or the added chemicals/insecticides/pesticides,, etc?
Moutains to move to find the truth. The grass roots get it!! Masses are the truest asses.
Mark
None of us wants to be tested. But each of us would like to believe if we are – we will do the right thing.
This is my 2nd business. My first was in Internet. I had a dialog with my customers, and earned a loyalty. Every marketer tells how great their product is. It takes a strong person, a real person to admit to being imperfect. But it is with that admission – in my case in the Internet biz, was occasion "I screwed up and I'm sorry, and this is what happened, this is why it's not going to happen again" approach gained loyalty. There was so much of the phone company screwing up, it would have been easy to put it all on them. But taking the responsibility when it was my fault, made them not think 'okay, here we go, it's the phone company's fault again…."
Yet, there were those that would put their thumbs on that honesty. And competitors that would grasp at any straw. "See, he even admits it". Bad people.
Having a trust in people and not filling them full of everything is great all the time – is the right thing to do, and people will recognize that. You just have to trust, and know, those that are led by the nose to some illusion of perfection aren't the people you really want as customers anyway.
Every tragedy by otherwise great people, organizations, starts with a huge ego believing 'not me'. Having a huge ego myself, as do most of the people here, means I have a responsibility not to give into my own hype. Checks and balances. My biggest one is named Julie, my wife. And I've even trained my kids to kick me down a few notches as necessary.
Big egos don't listen. Big egos are convinced of their own righteousness. Big egos DO make mistakes, but don't admit them, they blame others and define bad as good. And big egos get deluded until the bubble is burst, and that, for us, means tragedy, and beyond our farm, way beyond.
Ed is my kind of people, and he will, as Mark says, have to bar the doors for all the new customers. I hope the people here can see the lesson. A strong safety program isn't to be feared. It is THE weapon we will wield to victory. ALL movements that succeed are about something – good, rather than being simply against something bad.
Thanks to many for whatever safety poster child I'm becoming, especially Tim Wightman, who is the real soul of so much of all this, most especially now, the push for raw milk safety. We're really on the move now – to legal raw milk, milk products and real food. Our farms will be looked upon as the shining examples of excellence. And excellence is the ultimate attractor —
Scott
Check this out, there are 3 in Wisconsin, one near Trautman.
http://iqxs.posterous.com/fw-subject-foreign-trade-zones-within-the-usa
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html
You keep having these stupid conversations about food safety while our government is selling us out to China, literally.
Does this mean that companies will be using Chinese slave labor in our own back yards? Look at the companies on this list. Food companies are included. And I bet they can afford to follow your testing programs when they use slave labor. Looks like you might have some competition, Scott.
"But taking the responsibility when it was my fault…"
"Big egos don't listen. Big egos are convinced of their own righteousness. Big egos DO make mistakes, but don't admit them, they blame others…"
Let me direct you to the comments section of Gumpert's article dated September 24, 2010:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/9/24/thank-you-wi-datcp-for-giving-me-the-opportunity-to-create-a.html
Where was your sense of responsibility when you acted rude, crude and completely inappropriate when asked simple questions regarding your 'standards' or were told that some people didn't want go along with them?
You never apologized. You were never sorry. You never admitted that your three day tirade was responsible for alienating a large chuck of your supposed allies in the raw milk movement.
You talk a good game now, but I can see through your bullshit.
Answer these two questions, Scott, before you continue to blindly cheerlead 'standards' and 'testing'.
1. How much did you pay Midwestern Bio Ag to 'revitalize' your farm? I asked you this question back in September but you never answered it. This is part of your 'standards' protocol, isn't it? It was in September.
2. How much does the milk testing that you advocate cost? Don't give me a guess. Call a testing lab. And factor in the costs to do One Day Fed Ex, dry ice, and how frequently these tests are to be conducted. Mark McAfee or Ed Shank is welcome to answer this, too.
Oh, yes, and before you champion Tim Wightman as the 'soul of the raw milk movement', remember that he was called as an expert witness for the defense in both the Hartmann and Morningland cases, and neither of these farms had test results that matched WIghtman's own testimony. He sunk those cases. So much for our 'hero'.
"Next came the testimony of Tim Wightman, a dairy consultant, Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund board member and major force in the push for National Raw Milk Standards. While the Attorney Generals office questioned his expertise, they nonetheless had done their research on Wightman and used his own standards to effectively malign Morningland Dairy because of one milk sample where their somatic cell count (SCC) went over the state grade A level of 750,000. Results from one full year of Morningland milk samples were read into the record and the SCCs were from 160,000 to a one-time-only spike of 1.7 million. The average SCC was 600,000 or lower with only that one spike and several in the 300,000 range. Most dairy people will tell you that the records are indicative of a very well run dairy with good herd health, and the spike was likely due to someone forgetting to turn on the tank to cool the milk. An error, yes, but not one worth destroying a business over.
"Nonetheless, the AGs office used Wightmans standards from his own literature to cast aspersions on the herd health of Morningland. Mr.Wightman also inexplicably stated that when you remove cows from the milking line it will reduce your SCC. He testified that his standards require SCCs of less than 300,000 with any spike being indicative of a potentially severe herd health problem, not a potential human error."
http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen111.htm
"Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire & are all intended for intellectual entertainment only."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTZ
That was pretty darn harsh. Where is the forgiveness.
Lola. SCC counts are not bacteria counts and they do not grow. They are tissue cells not bacteria. They have very litte to do with safety if anything. Dr Ted Beals work in michigan tells us that SCC are very good for a consumers immune system.
Each of us will find our way forward. But abusing a raw milk producer that is trying his best is really bad Karma.
Mark
I won't buy into the fear promulgated by the authorities.
The premise of these standards is that there is a problem. Personally, I think that's wrong, and it just bolsters those who discredit raw milk, just because it isn't produced with a zero incident number. Sure some have gotten sick from raw milk, but compared to other living foods, or foods that are processed, or deadened, raw milk has a tremendous success ratio. Just think how many producers are out there today, and how many thousands of gallons will be consumed today…incident free. No, those that are working to divide the raw milk community, under the guise of safety, are doing the movement a disservice….while at the same time misleading the public about raw milk (as we have seen with Ed's case, testing does not guarantee the safety of raw milk…no matter what kind of accreditation is on the label). The idea that the authorities will some how miraculously come around and capitulate to raw milk because of a some fancy standards is ludicrous. Big Dairy has a lot to lose here….and they won't just go away because of some paper (actually it giving them an avenue to embrace [co-opt] raw milk would be even worse).
The cost of these new standards is important…for that alone could limit those who could afford to have that extra marketing tool. I wonder too what kind of per cow, per gallon, per acre cost the new standards might be forecast to have.
"Lola. SCC counts are not bacteria counts and they do not grow. They are tissue cells not bacteria."
I did not write that. Doreen Hannes did. It's quoted from an article she wrote about the Morningland case. If you have an issue with it, take it up with her. That part of her article was posted to illustrate how Tim Wightman screwed up that case.
"Each of us will find our way forward. But abusing a raw milk producer that is trying his best is really bad Karma."
Oh, please…stop the guilt trip you holier-than-thou corporate monopolist. Trautman never apologized, yet expects us to look up to him as some sort of leader and expert. When told he was being abusive, he came out swinging even harder. His true colors showed that day. Stop making excuses for him, he's a grown man. He needs to own up to what he said and how he treated us.
He still needs to answer the two questions I posted for him. Or would you like to answer question #2, Mark, as I invited you to do? How much does your milk testing cost, and how often do you do it? Avoiding the question won't make it go away, just as painting me as the villain doesn't change the truth of my words.
Coliform testing costs for each ….$10
Pathogen testing costs for each….$25
SPC testing costs for each…..$5
Mark
If you freeze and ship milk for microbiological analysis the sample is ruined. It should be kept at refrigeration temperature. If you are testing for drug residues, then freezing is appropriate.
Here is a nice overview of product testing (it has a produce focus, but the principles would be the same for milk):
http://www.pma.com/system/files/core%20paper%20pathogen%20testing%20Final.pdf
MW
All samples should be in sealed containers to assure integrity.
Mark
Mark, I suspect you meant to say assets not asses. But typos like this can have repurcussions.
What do most farmers do – hide positive test results? The possibility of a lawsuit if he did not disclose test results, and someone became ill, is too obvious. Disclosure of test results is not heroic, it's just good business sense. (Though I agree with Scott that it isn't easy!)
MW, thanks for posting that link on testing. Very informative and well written! If you were a microbiologist, would you use PCR testing, or plate cultures?
-Blair
GFTR, MW brought up the Pseudomonas/Campylobacter connection, not Bill Anderson, yet the only female that gets a look in here is Lykke, who keeps her goats in mud and has a penchant for men in yurts.
That's reasonable.
-Blair
Your kind words on this and other articles are certainly an encouragement to our familys commitment to raw milk safety, but an ambassador? Isnt that a little over the top? Makes me smile.
We are just a down-to-earth organic-farming-family that cares deeply about the health and well-being of the customer-friends weve learned to know over the past three years. If that makes us ambassadors, it is by coincidence and not by design. And I guess that makes a lot of others ambassadors as well.
Thanks also Mark McAfee, Joseph Heckman and Don Wittlinger. Your support, friendship and advice means more than I can say here. We are truly moved.
And to the other posters, I consider all of you a vital part of my advice team. I have been reading here daily for at least two years even though Ive never posted before. I was too busy learning from all that everyone else has to say! Maybe more truthfully, overwhelming email correspondence with our customers and writing our Fresh Thoughts on Real Food e-newsletter usually saps most of my writing time. I have been afraid to post lest I get sucked into spending time here that I really should be spending with the family etc.
Lest any of you suspect by all of our testing that we are bacteriaphobes who fear the microbe and are trusting in the all-knowing men with white coats to keep us safe Think again. Our family has been farming this dairy farm for close to 100 years. For the first 97 of those years, through 5 generations, we never ran a pathogen test and we never had a raw milk related illness even though we all drank raw milk everyday pregnant mothers, babies as soon as they were weaned and all.
The extensive testing that we do now since we are permitted by the state to sell our milk raw is not done to make the milk safe so much as to show that it has an on-going record of safety. The testing also gives us a constant measurement of performance. If we have many years of extensive testing to show no pathogens, we know we are doing things right. If a test comes back positive, even if there are no illnesses, it concerns us. We go over the protocol, strengthen the diligence and review the procedures to be sure all is well.
The test may have been a false positive. The level of contamination may have been very slight far below infectious dose, but all that is beside the point. Our alert is up and we check ourselves before we go on. It only hurts for a little. If one of our customers were seriously sickened, even if it was because their immune system was flabby by virtue of living a pasteurized life, the pain would go on forever.
All the best of food and blessings,
Edwin Shank
The Family Cow
http://www.yourfamilycow.com
Please check the second link, it's a government site. The Foreign Trade Zones are real.
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ftzpage/
http://foreign-trade-zone.com/
http://www.naftz.org/index_categories.php/ftzs/4
"What is an FTZ? An FTZ is an area within the United States, in or near a U.S. Customs port of entry, where foreign and domestic merchandise is considered to be outside the country, or at least, outside of U.S. Customs territory. Certain types of merchandise can be imported into a Zone without going through formal Customs entry procedures or paying import duties. Customs duties and excise taxes are due only at the time of transfer from the FTZ for U.S. consumption. If the merchandise never enters the U.S. commerce, then no duties or taxes are paid on those items.
"Activities Permitted in a Foreign-Trade Zone
Merchandise entering a Zone may be:
Assembled
Tested
Sampled
Relabeled
Manufactured*
Stored
Salvaged
Processed
Repackaged
Destroyed
Mixed
Manipulated"
Raw milk can't cross state lines legally but we can import finished or unfinished goods that haven't gone through the customs process? That's the point I'm trying to make.
If I was seeking a microbiologist for product testing, first and foremost, I would look for a lab that is transparent about their methods. Specifically, the capabilities and limitations of their testing protocols. I agree with Mark in choosing a laboratory with specific expertise in dairy products and as regional as possible. You want to know the sensitivity (ability to detect positives) and specificity (ability to rule-out negatives) of the test. Regarding choice of PCR vs. plating, it really depends. Detection of signature nucleic acids with PCR is generally faster and cheaper, but does not always correlate with plating results. If the bacterial cells are dead, the PCR will still give a positive result. Also, because raw milk is a complex matrix, there may be inhibitors that result in false negative PCR results. Thus, the lab must have careful documentation of how well their test performs. As described in the paper I linked to and Ed Shank's comment, product testing mostly measures the process and complements other safety and quality efforts. Your lab should be able to help you set-up the most effective and economical approach, which may be a combination of PCR screening followed by plating/confirmation.
One question about your CO approach…why don't you include Campylobacter in your pathogen panel? Campylobacter is by far the more common cause of raw milk-related illnesses and outbreaks compared with the other pathogens. A private laboratory specializing in dairy product testing should be able to include this important pathogen in their panel without excessive extra cost so long as their microbiologists have experience working with it. On that note, any chance Ed Shank could share information about the methods his private laboratory used to identify the Campylobacter that generated his voluntary actions?
Thanks,
MW
A left turn perhaps from this thread, but please compare these two articles:
http://www.greenpasture.org/fermented-cod-liver-oil-butter-oil-vitamin-d-vitamin-a/update-on-raw-milk-as-fertilizer/
and
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2011/feb/01/sowell/
"This is the first study to demonstrate that not only spore-forming Bacillus species but also a diverse suite of equally hardy, physiologically flexible bacterial species persist in the inhospitable conditions of clean room environments. The significant differences observed in the cultivable bacterial populations among the certified clean rooms are more likely attributable to the amounts of human activity and/or routine maintenance of each facility, rather than geographic location. The isolation of numerous bacterial species (including novel organisms) capable of surviving diverse, unfavorable environmental conditions is a testament to the remarkable distribution of physiologically diverse unicellular life. The occurrence of thermophiles (Geobacillus spp.) in mesophilic condition, obligate anaerobes (Paenibacillus sp.) in oxygen-rich environments, and halotolerant alkalophiles (Oceanobacillus sp. and Exiguobacterium sp.) in neutral pH environments supports the notion that everything is everywhere, the environment selects (3)."
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out at the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory under a contract with NASA and was funded by the Mars Sample Return Mission program and NRA ROSS 2005.
WTF is yurts? BTW, what is GFTR?
Thank you for the great lab criteria! It confirms that we have a good lab. I would add that he is also big on customer service, spending hours teaching producers and me about testing and pathogens. Permission to quote you on criteria for finding a lab on our website?
You wrote:
"One question about your CO approach…why don't you include Campylobacter in your pathogen panel? Campylobacter is by far the more common cause of raw milk-related illnesses and outbreaks compared with the other pathogens."
I know – and some think we should add it to our required tests. (Some of our producers do test regularly for Campy, and listeria. Some test more often than required.) We didn't require Campy test because:
1) Campy is elusive – here today, gone tomorrow. Often, samples taken during investigation of an outbreak don't test positive, even if human stool samples do. PCR can give false positives, and then your milk sits on the shelf while you perform more tests, usually to find out it wasn't there to begin with.
2) Cost – our microbiologist pointed out that for once-a-month testing, it really didn't make sense to test for Campy. Either test every batch, or test only if you suspect you have a problem. As far as I know, none of our farms include the cost of testing in their boarding fee, so balancing cost with risk, Campy's slippery character, and our microbiologist's advice, we did not require Campy tests.
3) Results come back from the lab 3-4 days after collecting a sample. At this point, the milk has been distributed (for most farms).
4) We considered Salmonella and E. coli0157:H7 most virulent, and wanted to test the absolute minimum. In 3 years of testing, neither of these pathogens have been found.
5) Campy typically manifests within 6-48 hours, causes diarrhea for 1-2 days. It is self-limiting so antibiotics are usually not required for treatment, and once bitten, you're likely to be immune to it. (in rare cases, it can cause bloody diarrhea, Guillan Barre Syndrome, etc etc…) It wasn't a reportable disease until the 80's.
Testing is no guarantee of safety, but over time, it does indicate process quality (As Ed pointed out, you test to prove it isn't there, but mostly you test to make sure your process is working.) Why clobber farms with tests unless it makes sense to test? Sometimes I wondder why we test for any pathogens – especially after reading Miguel's posts. If we could do more daily preventive tasks, we wouldn't need to chase pathogens.
Our standards require a re-test if coliform count is over 50, and/or SPC over 15,000. (Milk intended for pasteurization has higher limits – 100 for coliform and 100,000 for SPC). The lab also reports presumptive pseudomonas and lactose-negative species, though he won't test for specific bacteria unless we ask.
Hope this makes sense. If you have a cogent argument, I'll consider it. Our standards come up for review annually.
-Blair
Your point about standards dividing raw milk producers is well taken. We have already seen division in the raw milk community over the proposed Wisconsin legislation last spring (vetoed by the governor) that only applied to licensed Grade A dairies. There are signs of division in some states that allow permitted raw dairies along with herdshares. So, yes, it wouldn't surprise me if organized standards do create divisions.
I, for one, don't yet have a clear sense of how standards for raw milk will evolve. They could be something that individual dairies set for themselves, like Ed Shank and Scott Trautman are doing. They could be something that groups of farmers organize around, as those in Colorado have done. Possibly there could be a national organization that monitors and enforces standards.
What is most important to me going forward is the example of dairy farmers confronting the safety issue as cast by the public health and agriculture authorities head on, and saying…We may look at safety more holistically than you do, but we're not afraid to meet or exceed your criteria, because we produce high-quality healthy safe milk using rigorous procedures that we follow very seriously.
David
Standards in CO are not divisive because they are mandatory…all are under the same thumb, or lifted up with the same hand (depends on your perspective).
The new standards, if I recall, weren't presented as a 'singular' thing…they were presented as something that would be promoted and encourage other producers to 'join'. This is what really creates the us and them mentality…not Ed or Mark taking their own protocol seriously.
It's pretty hard to have any respect for the public health or other authorities when they continue to tell lies and mislead the public, raid dairy farmers and other whole food establishments with guns, and generally trample the rights of those who won't buy into the crap food system the 'authorities' promote.
I'm not sure what the evolution of standards will be either….but as long as we continue to get the "Russian Roulette", "never under any circumstances", and blurring of the two raw milks in America, it will still be the righteous capitulating to the deceivers (no matter how often they like to portray raw milk farmers as money hungry, short cut loving, slobs).
It doesn't matter. Once the words are in the law, it makes no difference what the realities are. The bureaucracy has every incentive to stretch the meaning of those words, in order to expand its empire.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/22/does-fluoride-really-fight-cavities.aspx
Ken Conrad
The article you referenced brings to mind this quote by biochemist Michael J. Denton, Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.
I wonder how long it will take us to realize that organisms are beyond our control?
Ken Conrad
"NASA utilizes a traditional, cultivation-based assay to assess spacecraft cleanliness (18, 20). Although a valid proxy for microbial abundance, this single assay offers only a limited assessment of the phylogenetic diversity and physiological breadth of the bacterial population present (12, 13). The utilization of numerous, different cultivation media has been shown to increase observed biological diversity in both artificial and natural environments (6-8). Recently, an investigation involving pharmaceutical production units showed that when culture media were modified to promote the growth of oligotrophs (low-nutrient-loving bacteria), approximately 2 orders of magnitude more bacteria were cultured than with standard minimal media (17). Similarly, increasing the number of medium types employed increased the yield of cultivated ciliate species from a lake in northern England nearly sevenfold (34)."
The problem with testing for specific bacteria is always going to be how to choose the culture medium.If the "everything is everywhere" viewpoint is correct,then we will find whatever we are looking for if we only look long enough and hard enough.
Going back to Blair's statement,why don't we handle the milk in a way that minimizes the opportunity for contamination and is simple and easy to inspect for possible sources of contamination.
Milking by hand into an open pail could work if enough attention is paid to cleaning the cow and the milker's hands.
Milking with bucket milkers like the Surge bucket milkers is still simple enough so that everything that the milk comes into contact with can be disassembled after each milking and washed without harsh chemicals,scrubbed with brushes and air dried thoroughly between milkings.Peg Beals' advice about cleaning your milk jars applies to this type of milking equipment."It's not clean until it's dry".
Cleaning milking pipelines and clean in place milking units is a big step in complexity.The milking units are a pain to disassemble after each milking and so is the pipeline,so we have to resort to sanitizing and hope that it works .How often should we be disassembling these systems and inspecting and cleaning the small milkstone deposits that are inevitable where rubber meets stainless steel?This is probably why we need a testing protocol for these systems.When we get back a positive test,then we need to inspect and clean or replace any questionable spot that might be a source of contamination,but as we see, getting back a negative test result is not really meaningful because the use of a different culture medium could have easily returned a positive test result.The satisfaction of disassembling and thoroughly cleaning and inspecting the entire milking system after every milking is more reassuring to me than any number of negative test results.
Here's some thoughts on the 5 points about Campylobacter testing for your consideration. This isn't meant to be a harsh criticism; overall, your testing algorithm makes sense. It still strikes me though that leaving Campylobacter off the panel is a weakness in your program. As a whole, Campylobacter testing is not much different from E. coli O157 and Salmonella in terms of its limitations. All three of these pathogens can be challenging to detect in milk, and the tests (PCR or plating) may result in false negative/positive findings. Since the recent outbreaks in Colorado were due to Campylobacter, it seems justified to include it in your panel. Ed Shank's example in this post further illustrates its importance if you are going to test for pathogens. Here's a few brief comments on your 5 points…
"1) Campy is elusive – here today, gone tomorrow. Often, samples taken during investigation of an outbreak don't test positive, even if human stool samples do. PCR can give false positives, and then your milk sits on the shelf while you perform more tests, usually to find out it wasn't there to begin with."
This same statement can be made about E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, which are also elusive and difficult to find during outbreak investigations and routine screening. PCRs can give false positives for any of these pathogens, depending on the assay.
"2) Cost – our microbiologist pointed out that for once-a-month testing, it really didn't make sense to test for Campy. Either test every batch, or test only if you suspect you have a problem. As far as I know, none of our farms include the cost of testing in their boarding fee, so balancing cost with risk, Campy's slippery character, and our microbiologist's advice, we did not require Campy tests."
Again, you could say the same thing about E. coli O157 and Salmonella – you could miss these too by not testing every batch. It sounds like your lab doesn't have a reliable Campylobacter test developed for raw milk that is practical for routine screening. Maybe they could send the sample to another lab for the Campylobacter test?
"3) Results come back from the lab 3-4 days after collecting a sample. At this point, the milk has been distributed (for most farms)."
Again, this is the same for the other foodborne bacterial pathogens if you are plating. If your lab is using PCR, there are PCR protocols for Campylobacter, as well as E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella.
"4) We considered Salmonella and E. coli0157:H7 most virulent, and wanted to test the absolute minimum. In 3 years of testing, neither of these pathogens have been found."
I agree that E. coli O157 and Salmonella are generally more virulent than most Campylobacter strains. But, C. jejuni can cause GBS with an estimated rate of 1 in every thousand cases. In comparison, the "swine" flu vaccine caused GBS in ~1 in every million immunizations.
"5) Campy typically manifests within 6-48 hours, causes diarrhea for 1-2 days. It is self-limiting so antibiotics are usually not required for treatment, and once bitten, you're likely to be immune to it. (in rare cases, it can cause bloody diarrhea, Guillan Barre Syndrome, etc etc…) It wasn't a reportable disease until the 80's."
Actually, E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella are also self-limiting for most people, and may lead to immunity too. Both Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7 were made reportable in the 1980's because they weren't discovered by the medical community until the 1970's.
In sum, I understand your reasoning for leaving Campylobacter off the pathogen panel, but do think it's a vulnerability in your testing program, especially since Campylobacter is more likely to enter milk compared with E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella given its widespread occurrence on farms.
MW
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020502210.html?hpid=topnews
""The FDA isn't beating up on artisanal cheesemakers," he said. "It's doing its job, which is to protect public health."
If this statement were true then all the chemically added,contaminated processed phoods would NOT be allowed.. the fda/gov doesn't give a rip about food safety; look at all the toxins they "allow" to enter our food chain. What utter BS.
"In the United States as much as 90% or more of the rennet is GENETICALLY ENGINEERED."
Can anyone venture a guess as to how much of this GMO rennet "stuff" has even made its way into the raw milk cheeses we all consume?
" Culturing always favors the recovery of organisms that are best able to thrive under laboratory conditions (colloquially lab weeds), not necessarily the dominant or most influential organisms in the environment."
National Research Council, 2007 4
"Widely available tests influence which microbes are studied in chronic diseases
Certain pathogens are repeatedly linked to various inflammatory conditions, but this does not mean these pathogens are the only microbes influencing the disease state. What these results may largely imply is that scientists have created effective tests that easily pick up on the presence of these microbes. Other microbes that may also be causing disease do not have a standard laboratory test to detect their presence.
H. pylori is often associated with a number of stomach conditions, because there is a reliable easy-to-use test to detect its presence, however, there are hundreds of other pathogens in the gut capable of causing disease that are not able to be detect in a standard laboratory. So, the microbe that ends up being discussed most in connection to stomach diseases is H. pylori, largely because the availability of existing tests.
As tests for communities of bacteria are developed and become more widely available, the understanding of microbes' effects on disease should evolve. "
Immunity guys… immunity….just keep the conditions correct for good bacteria dominance, the levels of pathogens extremely low or non existent ( so they can not quorum vote ) and let the immunity do the rest.
This is not rocket science….it is far more complex. It is called a natural biodiversity at work.
Mark