I want to thank Regulator…first, for risking him/herself on this blog, where regulator types haven’t always been well received and, second, for providing an articulate explanation of the challenges likely to confront farmers and other distributors of raw milk as it becomes more widely consumed. (Regulator’s comment follows my previous post.)
What I find most interesting is that the regulation argument seems to have shifted. For a long time, the focus of regulators has been to issue public service “warnings” demonizing raw milk as completely unsafe. But Regulator’s comment appears to signify a new level of acceptance, as if to say: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Thus, there’s a hint of conciliation, an acknowledgment that the regulators can’t stamp out raw milk consumption. Then it becomes a matter of discussing how to make it all happen, which is a much different discussion than much of what has gone on.
Not surprisingly, the shift is followed by the “but” argument, as in, “Lots of people may want to consume raw milk, but you’ll never get past the legal and insurance arguments.”
Regulator seems to be saying that the insurance companies haven’t caught on to the potential risk they are facing via the growing number of farms producing/selling raw milk. And the legal system isn’t equipped to handle raw milk’s “special” status.
A number of readers object to Regulator’s assessment based on legalities and rights. A cowshare, they argue, shouldn’t be subject to the same legal constraints as other types of conventional distribution. In that context, it’s difficult to ignore the reality that cowshares have become popular in significant measure because most states interfere in one way or another with conventional distibution of raw milk.
But aside from rights and legal obstacles, I wonder if there isn’t another simpler, experience-based factor, at work: Maybe, just maybe, the insurance companies haven’t presented an obstacle because raw milk contamination/illness isn’t a big problem.
We know that, statistically, raw milk is a tiny blip in the food-borne illness world. We also know that people who are sickened by raw milk, just as with other food-borne illness, generally experience mild stomach upset, and recover pretty quickly. For that reason, and also because they go into raw milk consumption understanding the slight risks, raw milk consumers aren’t inclined to sue in any event. There just aren’t many Chris Martin and Lauren Herzog type situations (the children who became very ill, allegedly from raw milk consumption, during September 2006).
One other thing: the insurance situation isn’t as foreign to raw milk as Regulator would have us believe. It’s generally provided as product liability insurance.
I’m sure Mark McAfee’s insurance company knew what he was up to before issuing Organic Pastures Dairy Co. the insurance that provides coverage in these situations. That insurance company is handling OPDC’s defense of the legal suits by the families of Chris Martin and Lauren Herzog (currently in the deposition phase).
I haven’t investigated insurance issues as affects raw milk in general, but if it’s like other areas of business, it’s tougher for the small provider than for the large one. That’s because product liability insurance is proportionately a bigger part of the expense ledger for a small business than a larger one. So smaller ones, especially in the startup stage, are often tempted to do without. Dee Creek wound up obtaining some coverage from business-related insurance to help in a $70,000 payout after two families filed suit in connection with illnesses in 2005 from its raw milk, but didn’t have an easy time.
Yes, there are issues around whether there’s less risk of illness from small producers of raw milk than from large ones, as An Observer suggests. The further goods need to travel, the less fresh the product is and the more subject it is to the vagaries of refrigeration. And there is the matter of how to communicate warnings about raw milk, as Steve Bemis has pointed out.
But really, these are solvable “details,” as it were. Not minor, but solvable. The big nut to crack is getting regulators to shift their approach–from the notion that raw milk represents a mortal public health danger to one that raw milk is a nutritious food that growing numbers of consumers highly value for its health benefits…and given that, how do we help them acquire it, rather than throw roadblocks in their path?
***
To those individuals who were having difficulties posting comments because of a security certificate problem, I have been in communication with the hosting company–and not getting practical solutions as yet. But if you’re still having difficulties, would appreciate any details you can provide on the exact nature of the problem. You can email me at david@davidgumpert.com.
By the way, I have had food poisoning twice in the last two years since starting to drink raw milk. However, the culprits were the noro virus from hotel water (I lost 15 lbs of fluids in one night) and some bad fish in a restaurant (wicked bad headache, nausea and vomiting). But I didn’t sue anybody. We have a litigious society, but some of us resist participating in that as best we can. As, for raw dairy, it has been a dream food for me and there is no turning back. That is why this dialog needs to continue.
Regulator, we need your help! In the state of Michigan, regulators, farmers and consumers have sat down and hammered things out. Perhaps that can be a model for you to help us where ever you work, whether it be on the state or federal level. There is a link to their website on my blog:
http://hartkeonline.blogspot.com/2008/10/kudos-to-michigan-department-of.html
Agribusiness, move over, the little farms and engaged consumers want a room at the decision making table!
In the year 2008, there were 11 cases of adults/teens/children? becoming ill with E.coli 0157:H7 after consuming raw milk or raw milk products. From the reports, it appears that the many victims suffered more than a mild stomach upset and one family is suing.
1. State of MissouriIn April 2008, after consuming raw goats milk, a one year old child becomes will with E.coli 0157:H7 and develops HUS. He spends one month in the hospital. The raw goats milk was purchased from a retail store. In Missouri, it is not legal to sell raw milk in retail stores. This family is suing the retail store.
2. State of Connecticut–In July 2008, 7 individuals became ill after consuming raw milk purchased from a retail store. From the final report, at least 2 were children, several were hospitalized, and one was on dialysis. It is unclear if more than one child developed HUS, but one did develop TTP. Three of the patients shared a matching fingerprint of E.coli 0157:H7, which also matched the sample found in cow manure at the farm.
3. State of Vermont–In September/October 2008, 3 people became ill after consuming raw milk ice cream (on the farm) and raw milk from the same producer. Two of the three people were related. We dont know if the 3 people involved were children, if they were hospitalized or if anyone developed HUS. A final report for the State of Vermont has not been released.
cp
I would be more likely to believe that regulators were genuinely interested in the safety of milk if they would make an attempt to deal with the epidemic of crohn’s disease in children that is caused by drinking milk from cows with Johne’s disease.
http://www.blackherbals.com/got_milk.htm
USDA Farce?
"With the growing Johne’s epidemic, US governmental regulatory agencies have been in a bind. The only thing allegedly standing between people and the paratuberculosis bacterium are 15 seconds at 72o Celsius.[215] The government has had to somehow convince the families of Crohn’s patients who started to ask questions that pasteurization was foolproof. The problem was that the preponderance of the scientific evidence was against them–almost every study ever done simulating pasteurization conditions showed that paraTB survived the 15 seconds at 72o C.[216] So USDA scientists designed their own experiment."
"Critics accuse the USDA of trying to ensure that no paraTB would survive in their pasteurization experiment by first crippling the bacteria. Very irregularly, with no precedent in the scientific literature for using this type of approach,[217] the USDA began their experiment by first "starving" the MAP bacteria,[218] exposing them to high-frequency sound waves, and freezing them–a technique that has been shown conclusively to weaken MAP.[219] They were also criticized for making a number of methodological mistakes and omissions.[220],[221] Then, allegedly to make absolutely sure not a single bug would grow, they used an inadequate culture media[222] and report culturing them for only 2 to 3 months.[223] It is widely accepted that the minimum time it takes to ensure the growth of paraTB is 4 months.[224]"
"It is perhaps not surprising that no MAP grew from the pasteurized milk in their experiment. The researchers concluded: "Results indicate that the transmission of live paraTB bacteria via pasteurized milk is unlikely." Despite fifteen[225] years of better research to the contrary,[226] based on that single questionable study, in a letter dated Feb. 9, 1998, Joseph Smucker, the leader of the FDA’s Milk Safety Team wrote "After a review of the available literature on this subject, it is the position of FDA that the latest research shows conclusively that commercial pasteurization does indeed eliminate this hazard."[227] "
Off the Shelf
"Despite its shortcomings, the USDA study continues to be cited and the rest of the scientific literature ignored by the government and the agricultural press.[232] Hoard’s Dairyman, for example, cited the USDA study and concluded that "pasteurization destroys this dangerous disease."[233] It wasn’t until the year after the study was published that such assertions were proven to be wrong."
"The only way to demonstrate for sure that live paraTB bacteria survive pasteurization is to culture a colony of living paratuberculosis bacteria from retail pasteurized milk off the grocery shelf. In 1998, that is just what researchers did. Choosing Ireland, which has the highest per capita milk consumption in the European Union,[234] investigators went to 16 retail outlets and got 31 cartons of milk which were pasteurized at commercial dairies large and small.[235] Six grew out live paraTB, 19%–almost 1 in 5.[236] This caused a national food scare with daily front page headlines, not a word of which crossed the Atlantic."
" When the results of the Irish study were released, crisis management specialists called the ramifications "enormous," "horrific." Dairy industry experts described it as a "significant blow to the industry," "accelerating the long-term decline of milk," and noting "It’s not a market that can just bounce back."[237] Dairy industry leaders reacted angrily to the suggestion that pasteurization was inadequate. The British National Dairy Council’s "Information Officer," said she wished the investigators had contacted the industry before publishing their scientific findings.[238]"
Johnes and BLV…I’m getting challenges about both, and answers from no one. I spent an hour today talking to a scientist/CEO about rapid DNA Johnes tests. I can’t get anyone to talk authoritatively about BLV yet. And while I’m at it, Brucellosis….especially for goats.
I keep asking if there are any studies comparing grassfed to CAFO – nope. WHY?
There is no real science – this is food the USDA pushes like drugs, but they can’t provide guidelines how to safely produce it….except to say it’s only safe if it’s pasteurized, yet that does not kill Johnes… and Mad Cow Disease? Ohmigod, tremendous disconnect there….Mark Purdey, please come back.
RE the liability issue – an agent called me a few weeks ago offering his services for liability insurance for raw dairies to RMAC. He sounds really cool. We have much to talk about – he kinda likes the idea of testing every batch, but I told him about small herds and careful producers and he’s willing to talk about it.
David et al, your blog is teaching me so much, and helping me be more helpful to the farmers I wish to serve..
Never mind your cool progressive and tactful head….I might even begin to read Regulator’s posts with balance….biting my tongue doesn’t seem as hard now.
Regulator, thank you and please forgive.
You all are leading edge – thank you! very much for this dialogue.
-Blair
Please explain. What is RMAC?
As a consumer I’m forced to wonder, why are we drinking milk from sick animals in the first place?
I have known several individuals who suffered (past tense) from Crohn’s disease. They all put it in remission with the help of raw milk! Irony of ironies. For some it was part of a diet change, for others drinking raw milk was the only change made. I’ve known others with Crohn’s who trusted doctors and drugs; they are still sick.
Of course, the medical profession will tell you diet can’t help Crohn’s disease. They’d rather just pump you full of chemicals and slowly cut away your colon until you die.
Now you know why I drink raw milk and think very poorly of doctors.
Article linking Johne’s and Crohn’s
my questions are to cp and regulator, to cp who professes herself to be the voice of the childrem, a handfull of whom have suffered from ecoli-h7 over the past 5 years or so. did you read these reports cp? let me quote a few paragraphs that really horrify me.
from : http://academy.asm.org/images/stories/documents/mycobacteriumaviumparatuberculosis.pdf
CD was named after Burrill B. Crohn, an American physician who published a
paper in 1932 clearly distinguishing CD from intestinal TB (1). CD is a syndrome
characterized by chronic and debilitating inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract
that can be accompanied by mild to excruciating pain, frequent bouts of diarrhea,
and malnutrition due to rapid passage of food through the inflamed intestinal
tract. Some patients must be fed intravenously during the most difficult of their
episodes. These devastating and episodic symptoms can force patients to
maintain a limited work schedule or to refrain from working altogether, and the
psychological effects of the disease are profound. The uncertainty of their condition
and the ever-present possibility of symptomatic flare-ups often drive patients
into anxiety, depression, and isolation. As of 2001, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention estimated that over 500,000 people in the U.S. are living with CD
(2), and more recent statistics show that 800,000 people in North America and 1 in
1000 persons in westernized countries have diagnosed CD. In the U.S., roughly
50% of CD patients are children. There is currently no cure for CD.
With the right anti-inflammatory drug or immunomodulatory biologic regimen,
CD patients can experience temporary remission of symptoms, but long-term
flare-ups inevitably follow, coming on suddenly or developing gradually over time.
Surgery to remove inflamed sections of the bowel is the only option to alleviate
the symptoms of many people living with CD. Many other patients endure endless
regimens of drugs to alleviate some of their symptoms, but these drugs, too, have
side effects, some that can even be life threatening.
MYCOBACTERIUM.
50% are children! how is this acceptable? reading these reports convinces me of the pure evilness of human beings chasing a profit. cp, note that corhn’s has no cure…. note that "treatment" consists of slicing and dicing the digestional tract a bit at a time until there is no digestive system left and the patient dies… likely however those children are no longer kids when they die since the medical system keeps them alive (if you can call that living… i don’t know… but they (hospitals) must make a killing on insurance payments for their efforts.
to regulator, how can you not be focused on this epidemic? how can you not be running SCREAMING to your bosses to do something about this? would your solution be to boil the milk hotter/longer and remove any trace of nutrition from it so that big dairy can continue business as usual? if so do you think that is acceptable to americans (as individuals).
cp, do you feel like maybe you missed the boat on this? do you think it’s more important that you represent a tiny few who will likely recover even from HUS (which as i understand it is really triggered by doctors blindly prescribing antibiotics without first checking on the possibility that the patient has ecoli-h7, which releases toxins on being killed off enmass)
how anyone can learn the truths of our corporate systems and still support them, let alone consume the products they offer is beyond me. even denial has to come around to acceptance eventually. i guess only a few of us are able to make that transition using our our ability to comprehend while the masses let themselves be blinded and refuse to actually look and see what is going on behind the curtain.
i’d like to see you stick around cp so we can eventually know how you travel the road of learning and understanding that you’re currently looking down but seem adament not to really travel with open eyes.
good luck to everyone trying to get a handle on what all this means for their longterm health and well being… by god, we all need all the luck we can find entering a grocery store anymore.
Thank you…thank you…thank you… for starting to write about regulators and inviting the conversation to build a new bridge of understanding.
We need these people and we need them to see raw milk as a freedom issue. They have no business regulating our freedom. They do have a lot of business working with us so that we can freely enjoy our choices. This takes open minds that are not bound by greed ladened promises to control markets and our foods.
Insurance can be purchased through your broker with "Burlington" as the carrier. Burlington has covered OPDC for many years and renewed the OPDC policy with out increase in premimu after the two Marler lawsuits. That may give you some indication of how weak they feel the Marler cases are. The Burlington lawyers are extremely good and really have researched raw milk issues. They are experts…
If the government would be less involved politically and let liability and standards and inspection testing move the markets….guess what ??? everything would work. It is the biased, corrupt researchers and government political agenda that really suck. That is what sunk SB 201 in CA this year and that is what protects big dairy. We had the science…but corrupt politics cut us off at the governors desk after the people ( thru their legislative reps ) had voted 97% yes for raw milk standards that protect the consumers, markets, producers and safety.
Lets make friends with as many regulators as possible. Their kids will really do well on raw milk.
Do not forget to tune in on January 3rd for the Al Rocka Food Network special on Raw Milk staring many of our friends at Weston A Price and other Moooshine Runners.
God bless them all,
Mark McAfee
Since Blair has previously indicated she is from Colorado, RMAC probably stands for Raw Milk Association of Colorado. http://www.rawmilkcolorado.org/
Of course "the Industry" does not include smaller farms.As our representative in the state legislature put it:"If we are going to have farms in this county in the future,they will be these factory farms,so we should support them as an alternative to Industrial developement."
Small independent farms which find their own market are seen as a threat to the "real" farms.
The following Great Thoughts are offered here as "targets" for further discussion (sorry about the detail and length of all this; it’s coming from a lawyer). They are an attempt to synthesize some of the major issues and discussion currents which have been flowing:
1) The FDA Petition should be broadened to exempt sales OR OTHER DISTRIBUTION of raw milk and raw milk products, which sale or other distribution is legal in both the originating state and in the consuming state.
[Mark’s petition is modeled on Ron Paul’s original Resolution, which is still buried in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and which should be broadened to free up interstate traffic founded in other legal arrangements (such as cow shares, which with all due respect Mark, are not "black market"). 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 Petition as it is presently drafted since the Petition bakes in a high level of both state and federal regulation; hopefully, FDA would at least approve the Petition for further comment, where these additional points can be raised.]
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.
3) Sales at retail (where the consumer by definition is remote from the producer) should be regulated under state law.
4) 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.]
5) Parents are free to feed their children whatever foods they choose.
6) 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.
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) 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.
10) 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.]
Remember Kimeli, the African Maasai that attended medical school at Stanford and was diagnosed with Crohns in 2003 ( after being on the SAD USA diet for seven years ). His Stanford doctors suggested surgery to remove 12 feet of this intestines. After one year on OPDC raw milk at four to five half gallons per week ( he had a hard time tolerating other foods and many made him sicker )….no more Crohns and or symptoms of Crohns by 2005-2006. Kimeli shocked his PhD’s so much that they had me come speak to the medical school at Stanford for three hours about intestinal biodoversity and how raw milk can rebuild immunity and heal person suffering from IBS, Crohns and Celiac. Weston A Price visited and studied the Maasai in the 1930’s. Kimelis story is a flash back to teachngs that will save us in the future. The medical students looked dazed and confused. The PhD’s agreed buy did not have a clue of what to do with the information.
The biology of it all is irrefutable!!
Remember Jordan Rubin ( of "Makers Diet" Fame ) he nealry died of Crohns in the 1990s and now he is Crohns symptom free. He drank nothing but Raw Milk Kefir and raw milk and after two years….what do you know…no more Crohns.
Reuters ( EU Science not FDA science ) annouced two months ago that Crohns was actually a condition brought on by a deficiency of certain bacteria in the gut. Fancy that….bacteria deficiency.
Are we all that stupid?….biodiversity and raw milk. A simple answer to greed, drug pushing and criminal pain giving by modern doctors and the FDA.
There is a healing cure for Crohns….Kefir and raw milk. Eat your bacteria and the whole food that feeds them. Drugs make it far worse.
I feel like screaming. In fact I have…it does not work. No one will listen, they are too drugged -up, brain washed and unconsciuos to get it. Even if it saves their lives.
Mark Mcafee
The power of the SYSTEMS propaganda machine is staggering, it produces complete mental blindness and gross missplaced fear!
The etiology (or etiologies) of Chron’s disease is controversial. I’m not saying that M. paratuberculosis couldn’t be a factor, or that there shouldn’t be concern about the safety of milk if contaminated with this bacteria…but the science is unclear. Even Campylobacter is being eyed as a supsect. For example, these papers came out this month.
Detection and isolation of non-jejuni Campylobacter species from children with Crohn’s disease
http://tiny.cc/F2p5C
Absence of mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in Crohn’s patients
http://tiny.cc/BWXVi
A question about this observation described above:
"Remember Jordan Rubin ( of "Makers Diet" Fame ) he nealry died of Crohns in the 1990s and now he is Crohns symptom free. He drank nothing but Raw Milk Kefir and raw milk and after two years….what do you know…no more Crohns."
Determining causation is pretty tough. I’m skeptical about the jump from Chron’s to raw milk kefir to no Chron’s. What other foods did he eat during that time? Maybe he increased his vegetable intake along with just drinking raw milk kefir? Maybe it was the spinach, and not the raw milk?
The Pub Med articles and research referenced above confirms our case in point perfectly for raw milk consumption.
It said…Campylobacter only infected the immunocompromised.
It is good to not be immunocompromised. It is good to drink raw milk… which is arguably…the strongest and most effect immune food on earth. Other University research confirms that raw milk drinkers naturally have positive Campylbacter titers and antibodies that are protective of infection with Campylobacter ( ie…travelers diarrhea common name in the old days). It was not even listed as a pathogen until 1972 when antibiotics and our immune systems got out of whack and we became more distant from the farm.
Is a pathogen a pathogen if it does not make you sick?
Pathogens are pathogens only if you are immune compromised and weak.
Weak or strong that is the question…. that is the choice.
Mark
From what I understand, the Ra Milk Campylobacter outbreak that sickened the RN in Northern CA last summer demonstrates this point perfectly. This nurse had just returned from Cancer treatment and chemotherapy. She was the one that got sick and even contracted a rare form of Campylobacter reaction called Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
She was immune rarified….she had literall y nothing left to fight infection like a healthy person would.
She like many new raw milk consumers come to raw milk after illness in a Hale Mary Attempt at superior health. This does not work….prevention is gradual and takes time…..no quanum leaps allowed. Step by step the body repairs and health returns.
The others in the outbreak did much better but had stronger immune systems. Some were not effected at all.
Choose strength. Avoidance of beneficial bacteria in its biodiversity brings weakness.
Mark
Per comments from Steve Bemis and cp about warning labels/signs on raw dairy products (the bottle, the dairy case, and the Internet), any suggestions on how best to incorporate this concept of "taking time" to become a raw milk consumer? How should that be phrased? Should they consult their doctor first, especially if they have a young or compromised immune system? Obviously, no one wants someone to drink a glass of raw milk (or give one to their child), then end-up with permanent kidney damage, paralysis, or premature death.
RMAC is Raw Milk Association of Colorado, a group of 36 raw cow & goat dairies and supporting consumers that operate under herd-share agreements.
Steve, terrific write-up on legal aspects – Thank you! I agree that there should be absolute minimal obligation by health/ag depts to monitor but it sure would be nice if the state paid for herd health & milk safety tests….if they could just help us SELF-monitor, we’ll take care of the rest. Haven’t seen a pathogen yet, knock on wood.
In CO, producers are required to register with the state health dept, inform shareholders of their herd health & milk handling procedures, keep a copy of each contract on file, label their milk "unpasteurized", and inform/explain any tests conducted. RMAC requires that they test for TB & Brucellosis and perform monthly milk tests, and we monitor the results. One thing that helps is we send out an anonymous group report and we meet to discuss ways to improve (or have email discussions). They can also consult privately with the lab or 2 vets.
Mark, CP & Observer et al – thanks for the links & the clarification on Campy & Johnes – I feel more confident about leaving tests up to the producer and/or the consumer; as long as RMAC can provide the information they need….
Observer, I read Jordan Ruben’s "Patient Heal Thyself" and if I remember right, he attributed his healing to eating "God’s food" in raw form (including raw milk), and probiotics including proprietary "Homeostatic Soil Organisms" (which he sells for $40/bottle)… I liked Kilele’s story better – Mark brought him to Denver Conference in 2006 and it was an awesome testimonial.
Did you hear that APHIS/VS rescinded their memo mandating premises ID???? What a delightful gift! I think I’ll send FTCLDF a little thank you note.
-Blair
Wow, Mark, An RN. She would have known her immune system was compromised after chemo, I am amazed she drank raw milk, but then, we don’t know her reasoning for doing so. Maybe she was desparate for quick return to good health? Many times they are put on reverse isolation, no fresh flowers, no fresh fruit or fresh veggies, no one allowed near with a "slight" cold.
The information here has been fantastic. Thanks everyone for sharing.
Immune system development is so basic to health, and so common a topic here and elsewhere, that it seems impossible to miss it without willful ignorance. Yet it’s the very folks at the root of the problem who do indeed miss it. The unfortunate nurse Mark speaks of is classic. A medical professional making a last ditch attempt at health at a time when the current health paradigm has her on the ropes is a poster-child representation of what is wrong here.
Mark’s synopsis, "Weak or strong; that is the question" is exactly on target. The current paradigm makes us weak, and concomitantly makes the environment more dangerous (by increasing exposure to chemical toxins, strengthening the relative negative potentials for biologicals, and placing impediments in the way of alternative health options like raw milk). When the inevitable sicknesses arrive, we then gratefully submit ourselves to dangerous, expensive, "heroic," medical fixes offered up by the very system that got us there. Crazy.
I can tell you this unequivocally: It is impossible to keep a population healthy within today’s common health paradigm. It is depressingly difficult to keep individual patients alive, and impossible to keep them feeling well, after they have lived for a time in what cp called the "sick world." I am not saying that there is no risk to alternative, naturally-achieved health, only that there is far greater risk to the opposite. Isn’t this painfully obvious?
A world in which health is achieved first through medical care, and raw milk is considered a last ditch effort, is upside down. Please stop the one-sided talk of protection from pathogens. It is inhumane. Weak or strong; that is the question.
This is what bothers me about raw milk being advocated for children with asthma. Their immune systems are compromised and the solution is raw milk. Some are stating it was foolish of for this woman to try raw milk when she was so ill. Isnt it just as foolish for children with asthma to try raw milk? What about promoting probiotics as a first step? Would this be so awful?
cp
It was actually "Regulator" that asked about RMAC. But, thanks for the information. This is very interesting: "RMAC requires that they test for TB & Brucellosis and perform monthly milk tests, and we monitor the results. One thing that helps is we send out an anonymous group report and we meet to discuss ways to improve (or have email discussions). They can also consult privately with the lab or 2 vets."
Many industries do not discuss their private test results with each other or the regulators, and the information is considered proprietary. It would be great if this was a model followed by other food industries (beef, produce, ready-to-eat foods, etc.). Academic studies of pathogens on farms are important, but slow to come out and often limited in scope. Although I think there are many limits to the private lab tests (for example, ones used that are not validated for raw milk), they still serve a purpose.
Regarding the Jordan Ruben comment, I was being sarcastic…thinking back to the time when this board kept pointing the finger at spinach during the extensive discussion of the 2006 E. coli outbreak despite the fact that the DNA fingerprints were different…and argument about absolute proof needed (the Ruben story isn’t absolute proof it was raw milk kefir or probiotics that cured the Chron’s…).
On the weak immune system issue, in looking at the major pro-raw milk websites, there doesn’t appear to be any warnings or discussion of how a person with a weakened immune system should approach this product so it isn’t a last ditch (and avoid getting severe illness like the RN). In fact, many talk about cures for various illnesses, which as cp said, suggest they have a compromise with their immune system. Yes, there’s been lots of discussion here, but most "new users" probably wouldn’t go through all the old posts to dig out that information…
While I don’t see any harm in taking probiotics for a few months before starting on raw miilk, I don’t share the view that probiotics alone can be a substitute for raw milk, esp for children. Weson Price found that raw animal fat was crucial to achieving optimal physical development. The child with asthma may find immune system improvements with probiotics alone, but will not recieve the developmental benefits of the raw fat. Omit the raw milk, without finding some other raw fat substitute, and he/she will end up with a narrower face, more crowded teeth, a weaker chin, poorer muscle tone, weaker bones, etc, than would have been achieved otherwise. I have been convinced of this from reading Weston Price’s book, from observing my own children, and from comparing their physical development with myself, my husband, and all of their non-raw-milk drinking cousins.
Raw milk is the only explanation I have for how 2 not-so-athletic people with crowded teeth, from extended families of the same, have produced 3 young athletes with straight teeth.
I go to a lot of trouble to obtain raw milk, and would not do so if I felt that probliotics alone could substitute. It certainly would be easier to have them pop a pill!
I wouldn’t object to a label that suggested yogurt or a probiotic for a few months before switching to raw milk, to get the gut ready, but I would object to any label that suggested raw milk was unsafe (or less safe than any other food) or that yogurt/probiotics could be a long term substitute.
I agree Dave. I think for many, if they don’t question the medical community and the foods they consume, they will always seek treatments from what they know, and the poor health will continue. Change isn’t easy for many. And I think many are afraid to step outside the box, no matter how sick they become. People have been informed about the toxic processed foods, yet they are still consumed.
I keep a short list of important words that have be redefined by modern culture. Third on that list is foodonce grown, now manufactured. Your idea of using a probiotic as a substitute for raw milk adds a new wrinkle to that redefinition. A probiotic is a supplement, not a food. They are not equivalent by any measurenot as close as apples and oranges.
Here’s an example: Recently my 85 year old father visited his internist because of minor leg swelling. Don’t worry about it, was the doctor’s opinion. It’s normal. Everybody gets that as they age. He actually thought that my father had avoided the problem longer than most. But Dad’s swelling is not normal, and needn’t be there. It is a result of poor vessel and cell wall integrity that, in my father’s case, is almost certainly due to eating too much polyunsaturated fat, not enough quality saturated fat, and perhaps also resultant of recent attempts by this doctor and others to lower his blood cholesterol. If raw milk had been a significant part of his lifetime diet (along with other whole, natural foods) chances are he would not be having this problem now. Raw milk’s high-quality saturated fat would have functioned to stabilize his vessel and cell walls, preventing the swelling. (This sort of mild, age-related leg edema is, by the way, only the tip of an iceberg of illnesses related to weakened vessel walls and loss of cell wall integrity.) Would you prescribe a probiotic for Dad?
Please realize that I am not saying that probiotics are not useful. My hospital now has a long-overdue standing order for probiotics for patients with c-difficile, and because of probiotics’ success there, is using them in many more cases than gut infection. I am in support of those efforts. But the subject here is health, not the treatment of diseases occurring in a population whose health has long been ignored. (In fact, the transmogrification of medical treatment techniques into health achievement techniques is one of the most dangerous results of out doctor-driven health care.)
I found this article. Raw dairy is not the only way to include healthy fats into our diet. Cod liver oil and ghee also provide the nutritional benefits of healthy saturated fats.
I have Sally Fallons book Nourishing Traditions. Every home should have this book as a reference for healthy living. The traditions that were passed down generation to generation have been lost due to women working outside the home. I love this book and refer to it often when cooking. Its like having by grandmother or great-grandmother in the kitchen with me.
Im a proponent of a well rounded healthy diet that includes organic food (and everything that implies for veggies, fruits and animal products) whole grains, and clean water. Removing or limiting all the bad stuff: vegetable oils, processed flour and sugar, added flavorings and chemicals are also a must. The formula is simpletake out the bad and add the good. Applying it is more difficult because of the world we live in.
I have a pragmatic personality. Most households have two working parents or a single parent raising children on their own. Living the ideals presented in Nourishing Traditions is not a realistic option for many families because of the time element involved.
Having said that, it doesnt mean people cant become healthier buy adding some solid nutritional supplements or foods to their diet. Taking codliver oil, using ghee on toast or when cooking, adding digestive enzymes and taking a probiotic supplement will help improve a persons health. For some, this is all they can commit to because its easy.
For all of you that have made a commitment to live by the ideals of Nourishing Traditions, I think it is wonderful. For many, consuming raw milk is a foundation of this life style of health. Raw milk is probably the greatest catch 22 food there is. It is the food of extremes. Its a healer or a killer depending on the batch received. Thats why I choose to stick with probiotics along with a healthy diet.
To clarify my statement of raw milk being a killer if a pathogen is present. E.coli 0157:H7 turned HUS casues multisystem failures. The only reason people havent died in the recent outbreaks is because of modern medicine. 30 years ago, most, if not all would have died.
cp
The Vit A in cod liver oil can become toxic in the body. Why do you use ghee on toast, instead of cutter? I am just courious.
The fact is that the delicate balance of compounds in raw milk, their interconnected physiological effects, and even the effects of milk production on producers and on the environment, will probably never be fully understood. Yet you speak as if we know all there is to know about it. You are confident in suggesting that duplicating myriad tiny pieces of the forest creates an effect as good as the original whole. That is folly. The substitutions are a mere shadow of truth.
Steven Wright once defined a conclusion as the place where one stops thinking. Similarly, the conclusion that any natural, whole food can be replaced by a busy complex of substitutions, results from the discovery that there is no more to discover.
You say, Living the ideals presented in Nourishing Traditions is not a realistic option for many families because of the time element involved. But you have exacerbated that problem, by assigning yourself the impossible job of reformulating the land of milk and honey.
Slow down, take a load of your brain, and drink raw milk, because it is safe and healthy and local and good for the environment, and because God put it here to nourish us. The alternative is gruesome… fear, anxiety, and malcontentedness. (Fear only of HUS will keep you running from milk, beef, and public swimming poolsafflicting enough, but as any good scientist will affirm, there are countless diseases and accidents out there lurking in the shadows, waiting to knock us into the grave. Where does it end?)
Ghee is not a raw fat. It is butter that has been clarified through heating and straining.
Cod Liver Oil may be raw, I don’t know. I have never thought about it in those terms. I consider it to be a delivery mechanism for vitamins A and D. I will assume it is raw. I just pulled out a bottle from my fridge and found it to have 40 calories of fat per tablespoon. I believe that Tom Cowan eats a diet that is about 50% fat, I assume mostly raw (he recommends diets up to 80% fat). Estimating a person’s intake to be at 2000 calories per day, 50% raw fat would be 1000 calories per day. To meet that with my Cod Liver Oil, you will need 1.5 cups per day.
The article you linked discusses ways to help an adult with a digestive problem, not a growing child. Although he doesn’t state it, I believe his suggestions are short term – to get the person re-acclimated it fat, with the goal of transitioning to a typical Weston Price diet (abundant raw animal fats). To really understand why, I would recommend reading Weston Price’s book directly (Nutrition and Physical Degeneration) and also joining the Weston Price Foundation for their quarterly journal.
You could also call Tom Cowan’s office and set up a phone consultation. His number is (415) 334-1010
"Living the ideals presented in Nourishing Traditions is not a realistic option for many families because of the time element involved."
It certainly becomes much much more difficult to do if you eliminate raw dairy! For me, it would be impossible without raw dairy.
Regardless, you need to understand that the extent to which you fail to meet your children’s needs for raw animal fats will dictate the extent to which your children fail to meet their full physical potential. Time will tell if you can meet their needs for raw animal fats with cod liver oil alone. Get back to us when they are grown, and let us know if they developed enough space for their wisdom teeth to come in!
"To clarify my statement of raw milk being a killer if a pathogen is present. E.coli 0157:H7 turned HUS casues multisystem failures. The only reason people havent died in the recent outbreaks is because of modern medicine. 30 years ago, most, if not all would have died."
Any food turns into a killer if E.Coli 0157:H7 is present. Should we put a warning label on everything? Why not cover all bases and just put a warning at the entrance to the grocery store? Yes, E.coli 0157:H7 has killed people. It might happen again, and raw milk might be the vector. God forbid, a child might die. Do we wrap ourselves up in fear, or problem solve and find ways to learn from mistakes and continue to improve the process?
Do we stop driving/skiing/giving birth because people have died? Making these decisions is all about calculating risk/reward, not running in fear from every "what if".
You have made choices for yourselves and your childrens diet that you feel quite strongly about. Im not putting you down for your belief systems. Nature has provided us with perfect nutrition. We are on the same page.
The problem I see with WAPF is that it is a bit cultish. If anyone disagrees, it gets nasty. The road to health is not owned by WAPF. Two of my grandmothers and two of my maternal great aunts lived into their mid and late 90s. None of them drank raw milk or consumed solely a WAPF diet. There are many variables that lead to good health.
If you do research on healing clinics (after someone has become quite ill, usually with cancer) the diets consumed are intense amounts of raw fruits and vegetables. Raw juice is consumed every hour. Animal fats, including dairy, are prohibited because they interfere with the healing process. Talk about opposite philosophies.
Foods that are exposed to cow poop are at risk for pathogens. Raw milk is at risk for cow poop. Theres no getting around this. Ive sited recent outbreaks involving E.coli 0157:H7 to make my point. Children are typically the victims.
Elizabeth, I would gladly have my childrens wisdom teeth pulled if that meant I would be preventing them from possibly dying or having permanent kidney damage.
cp
"Im not putting you down for your belief systems"
But you have suggested public labels on raw milk that proclaim, in essence, that my belief system is wrong.
"If anyone disagrees, it gets nasty. "
Have I been nasty? If so, please let me know where. I haven’t intended to be.
"The problem I see with WAPF is that it is a bit cultish."
Woa! Now who’s being nasty? Are vegetarians cultish? How about anyone who disagrees with you, and then finds a community of support. Are they cultish? Are Catholics or Muslims cultish?
"I have Sally Fallons book Nourishing Traditions. Every home should have this book as a reference for healthy living…… I love this book and refer to it often when cooking…."
"If you do research on healing clinics (after someone has become quite ill, usually with cancer) the diets consumed are intense amounts of raw fruits and vegetables. Raw juice is consumed every hour. Animal fats, including dairy, are prohibited because they interfere with the healing process….."
You strike me as someone who is continuously trying to have it all, exhausting yourself trying to find the perfect risk-free solution, so much so that you don’t even see the contradition in being concurrently anti raw milk and pro Nourishing Traditions.
Thousands of children are killed every year in automobile accidents. Do you put your children in automobiles? If so, why?
Wisdom teeth offer us a window into internal health. I see them as a report card on how I’ve done. I don’t expect to get an A, I’m just aiming to do better than my mother did. If you are willing to accept pulled wisdom teeth, you are also excepting all sorts of developemental consequences that will most likely shorten your child’s life, or impact their quality of life. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t guarantee no exposure to ecoli 0157H7, and produce a perfect child. The best you can do is build their health so that if an exposure should occur, God forbid, their bodies are best prepared to deal with it.
By accepting pulled wisdom teeth, you are also accepting a less attractive child. Other health issues aside, I am vain enough to want my children to have the broadest faces, and the widest dental arches with the most teeth, possible.
That’s my opinion anyway. It looks like we may just have to agree to disagree.
We all come to health via different avenues. Health and nutrition is a hobby of mine. I love reading and learning about it. WAPF is one philosophy of health. Im not making a value judgment of it being right or wrong. There are many valuable aspects of this diets philosophy. Just because I dont choose raw milk and raw milk products for my children does not mean I dont believe in raw milks nutritional benefits. I believe raw milk is a pathogen crap shoot and therefore dont choose it for my family. The multiple outbreaks that have occurred over the past few years make this point loud and clear and children suffer the most extreme consequences.
You stated, You strike me as someone who is continuously trying to have it all, exhausting yourself trying to find the perfect risk-free solution, so much so that you don’t even see the contradiction in being concurrently anti raw milk and pro Nourishing Traditions.
How many other traditional foods sources are sited in Nourishing Traditions? Sally Fallon even gives choices for recipes using either pasteurized or raw milk. There is no contradiction here. Im using my discretion. Im hardly exhausting myself trying to find the perfect risk-free solution.
The difference between us Elizabeth is you believe the benefits of raw milk outweigh the risks. I dont. And this is where we have to agree to disagree. What everyone does agree on is that raw milk can contain pathogens. It doesnt matter how careful a farmer is, pathogen contamination can happen. There is no way to make raw milk 100% free from pathogens.
Elizabeth, in California, you can buy raw milk in the grocery stores. There are two dairies that provide milk. One dairy is smaller and only provides raw milk in local stores around where the dairy is located. The other dairy is quite large and ships milk all over California. There is not realistic information on either website about pathogen contamination and there is no other food source that can host so many different kinds of pathogens. Poop is the problem.
Im sorry you dont like the idea about a point of sale sign warning for possible pathogen dangers. Others may appreciate the signs. I believe some parents may want to know their children could die from a pathogen. Or if they dont die, they could be damaged for life. I believe people should be well educated on both the pros and cons of choosing raw milk for children. Its just about education. One person may read the sign and come to the decision that the risk of death or permanent injury is worth taking and others may make a different decision.
Educational warning signs do not infringe upon anyone rights. Its all about choice.
cp
If an educational warning sign is placed over the raw milk case, then put it over all foods, including proccessed foods, water, toothpaste, etc. If you are going to educate people then do it correctly, educate about all foods and processing methods.
In Ca there are warnings on the raw milk bottles as the law requires.
People don’t read those warnings, they don’t pay attention to what’s on the side of a pack of cigarettes,(even the prez elect smokes) nor the bottle of booze. Isn’t there a sign for raw oysters and pregnancy? I’ve seen pregnant women consuming them. People will do what they have always done, rarely do they change. Warning signs are not the answer, they are a waste of time and money.
Truthful education is the answer. Teach them what fluoride does to your thyroid, teach them what chloramine does to your red blood cells (if fish can’t swim in it…) Teach them about the pathogens in that pound of hamburger, the burger/chicken sandwich from the fast food joint, the pesticides/herbicide on and in the produce, canola oil is a great pesticide, the list is unending. it’s not the product, it is what is done to it and how it is handled.
Some high school kids did an experiment in Tampa a few years ago, they swabbed the tube the ice comes from at various fast food places and the toilet seats in the same places. The toilet seats had less pathogens than the ice makers.
"WAPF is one philosophy of health. Im not making a value judgment of it being right or wrong." The point is that I AM making a value judgement. For me it is 100% right, and that raw dairy is an essential part of the WAPF message. So that puts us on opposite ends of the raw milk safety viewpoint. You would have warning labels on raw milk for children/elderly/ill people, while I would have the warning labels on all of the raw milk substitutes (pasteurized milk, soy milk, etc). Something like "Warning, does not meet the nutritional needs of children, replacing raw milk with this product, without finding another raw animal fat substitute, will shorten ones lifespan and hamper ones physical development."
So, in light of these 2 opinions, who wins? Do you get to warn people about your fears/beliefs, or I do get to warn them about mine? Perhaps we should give equal time to everyones fears, placing warnings and facts about conflicting points of view on everything.
Or maybe it would be best to stick to warnings on those food items which are documented to carry the most risk, and work our way down. In which case, raw milk from certified pasture-based daires would not come out on top. Why are you not advocating warning labels on those food items which rank above certified pasture-based raw milk? Where is your data that shows it to be more worthy of your concern than tomatoes, raw fish, spinnach, peanut butter, water, etc, etc, etc?
And speaking of concern, I find myself wondering where you get yours. It seems out of step with the magnitude of the problem, esp considering that your family doesn’t even consume raw milk. If you want to protect children, AIDS, famine, child abuse, medical malpractice, etc, seem like more worthy causes to focus on.
"Educational warning signs do not infringe upon anyone rights."
Yes they do! They infringe on my right to have my opposite view heard. They paint a picture that is skewed in favor of one opinon over another. They don’t give equal time to opposing views. And they accomplish nothing.
Lets take an extreme example and say we put a warning on all OP products that says "x number of children have contracted HUS from this product over the years, suffered greatly, and almost died. It will probably happen again".
What does this accomplish? A few people who feel victimized by OP will get the revenge they want. Some mothers will chose to forego raw milk for their children, who will then suffer the consequences. And the vast majority will ignore the labels and continue to drink it. OP’s future will rest on the continued safety of its milk, regardless of what is printed on the label.
"there is no other food source that can host so many different kinds of pathogens. Poop is the problem." These are contradictory statements.
I’ve been enjoying the conversation that you and Elizabeth, Dave,etal are having.
Regarding Claravale’s distribution of its milk: While they are smaller than Organic Pastures, their milk travels some distance to their outlets. I spoke with Claravale’s owners last Fall about their distribution area, and their milk is not available in their home county (San Benito). It is sold in SF Bay Area and LA area markets
You believe the WAPF message is 100% correct and that raw dairy is front and center to this diets healthy philosophy. I can respect your belief. I have a niece who is vegan. I disagree with this extreme nutritional perspective for daily living, but I can also respect her choice. However, she doesnt have children yet. This would not be a healthy diet for children. I think you would probably agree with that.
The point of sale signs came up in a discussion a while back. David attended the annual WAPF conference and met someone there that has some inside knowledge about California politics and the continuing raw milk legislation in the state in which I live. He posted a summary of their discussion which included talk about a point of sale warning sign in lieu of the ten coliform count restriction. The more I thought about this idea, the more I liked it.
Im not discriminating against raw milk in regards to the risk of pathogen contamination. Thats just one of the many topics about raw milk that is discussed on this blog.
Over the last few years, E.coli 0157:H7 is showing up in raw milk. This is a fact. Children are at the greatest risk for suffering the horrendous damage this pathogen does to the human body. This is fact. This deadly pathogen is also out of control in our beef supply and there are annual outbreaks with packaged produce, especially bagged dole lettuce. This is a fact. I would also support a point of sale sign where meat and bagged produce are sold, but that wasnt the discussion or focus taking place on this blog.
E.coli 0157:H7 is about contaminated cow poop (goat poop, pig poop, deer poop, & elk poop) that is showing up on our food supply or in areas where our children play. This pathogen does not discriminate once in the human body. In other words, its not about raw milk, beef, lettuce, spinach, petting zoos, recreational water sports, etc. Because of the day and time in which we live, this pathogen has turned basic food staples and normal activities into something deadly. Point of sale signs would educate people about this danger.
"there is no other food source that can host so many different kinds of pathogens. Poop is the problem." These are contradictory statements.
These are not contradictory statements. In California, raw milk is tested for E.coli 0157:H7, Salmonella, Listeria, and Campylobacter. If SB 201 passed, more frequent testing was a requirement. Why? Because, these are the pathogens found in cow poop. At anytime, one of these pathogens could be in the milk. There is no stop gapcooking, heating, etc
Again, we go around in circles. Steve Bemis appears to be the only person who acknowledges the possible risk of pathogens in raw milk and also has ideas as to how to address them. Thank you Steve.
cp
A couple of Steve’s "Great Thoughts" posted earlier in this thread:
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.
7) 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.
I can agree to your warnings, either posted signs or labels or whatever, if they are equally applied to raw milk, packaged produce, any washed produce, beef, and anything that has ever transmitted ecoli 0157H7. That seems reasonable. Single out raw milk for different treatment, and that’s when I start objecting. Although I still feel warning signs are largely ignored, so I wonder what they are accomplishing.
"there is no other food source that can host so many different kinds of pathogens. Poop is the problem." These are contradictory statements, because if poop is the problem, then anything that poop can make it’s way to, will host the same variety of pathogens. Poop in raw milk transmits the same kinds of pathogens as poop in water or poop on spinnach.
I agree with Steve’s #7. I can’t comment on #2 because I do not know what is on the raw milk label in California. Regardless, my feeling is that if the California raw milk producers want to put a warning on their lables, and find the fine line between implying that their product is potentially more harmful than any other food product and protecting themselves against lawsuits, that is for them to decide. That is how I feel. I realize that regulators have the last word on that one.
Talk to you later….
Misinformed and biased people reaching self-serving conclusions does not make for a valid argument. Show me the data, and keep it honest by limiting it to certified pasture-based raw milk, not suitcase cheese or confinement dairy.
Ok, I really do have to run…talk to you later…
"Government Warnings:
Raw (unpasturized) milk and raw milk dairy products may contain disease causing micro-organisms. Persons at highest risk of disease from these organisms include newborns and infants: The elderly: pregnent women: those taking corticosteroids, antibiotics or antiacids: and those having chronic illnesses or other conditions that weaken thier immunity."
The bottle also states Claravale products are regularly analyzed by Ca DFA. I believe Organic Pastures states pretty much the same.
The warning labels are already on the bottles.
From a freedom of choice standpoint, I don’t see how it hurts to give people the information they arguably need to make an informed choice; we who advocate for raw milk ask for choice; thus, it’s illogical in effect to deny informed choice to those who haven’t yet made the plunge. Sure, warnings may slow growth a bit, but I remember the care I took when first trying raw milk. I wanted to know, and I checked it out. Seeing its result both personally and from my current vantage-point, there is little risk of going back.
From the standpoint of fairness, I agree with Elizabeth that it cannot be argued that it’s fair to warn on raw milk simply because it has risk that could result in acute illness (many other foods carry this risk) or that it’s fair not to warn on foods that carry risk of chronic malnutrition and disease. If the day comes, that general food warnings on malnourishing food are required, it might even be nice for raw milk to have been in the warning arena first. In fact, warnings on raw milk might even become a kind of lever to require warnings on "regular" food.
Finally and on balance, I’d trade a federally-required warning on raw milk in a heartbeat to get rid of the interstate ban on raw milk and raw milk products, to stop the FDA from orchestrating state-level harassment, and to eliminate state-level licensing of local food sources based in private agreement such as cow shares.
You’ve made great suggestions and comments. I have no problem with a warning on the product. It is unjust to place a sign over a display singling out raw dairy and not also giving the same attention to other products that cause harm. IMHO I feel the processed foods are far worse than raw dairy. (To clarify, when I am referring to raw dairy I am referring to ; As Elizabeth said: "certified pasture-based raw milk, not suitcase cheese or confinement dairy.")
" In fact, warnings on raw milk might even become a kind of lever to require warnings on "regular" food."
I can agree with this:
"Finally and on balance, I’d trade a federally-required warning on raw milk in a heartbeat to get rid of the interstate ban on raw milk and raw milk products, to stop the FDA from orchestrating state-level harassment, and to eliminate state-level licensing of local food sources based in private agreement such as cow shares. "
I had intended to write something more tonight, but I am spent after a day of cross-country skiing :-). So I will just ask a question. I want to make sure I understand CP.
CP, please tell me the wording for the warning your would like to see on OP dairy products, on store displays of OP products, and on the OP web site. Also, exactly what information would you like to see on the OP web site that is not now there. For these issues, I am curious what your ideal warning would be – vs – what you would settle for -vs – what wording is inadequate in your view. I am asking this because it seems you have voiced concerns about OP milk lacking warnings, and yet there seem to be warnings already on the bottles, so I am just trying to understand.
"thus, it’s illogical in effect to deny informed choice to those who haven’t yet made the plunge."
I don’t see how it is illogical. It may be prudent to offer informed choice, given the underdog situation that raw milk finds itself in, esp from a legal stanpoint (as you have pointed out) but I don’t see how it is illogical. We raw milk advocates are asking for the freedom to engage in commerce. We’re not asking for a choice, because we’ve already made up our minds. I don’t believe that the raw milk movement as a whole owes anything to the people who disagree it, or to the people who have yet to make up their minds. Sure, it might not hurt to put something on a label, as long as the person who owns that label (the farmer) wants it there. Let the farmer, and the market, decide.
Here are some of the websites that promote the positive aspects of raw milk.
http://www.realmilk.com
http://www.rawmilk.org
http://www.rawusa.org
http://www.nourishingourchildren.org
http://www.raw-milk-facts.com
http://www.milkcolorado.org
9. What are pathogens?
Pathogens are disease causing bacteria and organisms. The three human pathogens that are tested (state mandated) at OPDC include Listeria Monocytogenes, Salmonella, and Ecoli 0157. To date, not one of these pathogens have ever been detected by any test at OPDC or conducted by any state or federal agency. Tests privately performed at OPDC (BSK labs) showed that even when these pathogens were added to OPDC raw milk at extremely high levels (7 logs) they would not grow and die off (test results available upon request).
OPDC milk products are highly pathogen resistant. In more than 32 million servings, and more than five years of intensive testing, not one single pathogen has been found or detected. Not one person has complained to the state of CA that they have become sickened by an OPDC product. Tests performed by UC Davis, Dr. C. Berge DVM revealed something quite startling: Fresh manure from OPDC cows did not contain Salmonella. At other dairies tested, many of the findings were positive (31% of conventional milk tanks tested showed a human pathogen present).
In summary, it has been theorized that the combination of grass feeding, no antibiotics used, no hormones, and low levels of grain used in diet cause a change in the cows immune system and rumen. This change in physiology directly inhibits pathogen development in the milk (actually a transfer from environmental contamination that does not seem to occur; there are no bad bugs in the manure that transfer into the milk and the clean raw milk is highly pathogen resistant).
16. Why do OPDC products carry a "government warning" that states that the consumer may be sickened by this raw dairy product?
Government regulations now require many living foods to carry a warning label, including meat, poultry, fish, and fresh juices. This came about because of the ever weakening immune system of the average American citizen. More and more US consumers have severely weakened immune systems and can become ill by eating small amounts of foreign bacteria that their bodies are not familiar with. It has been estimated that about 70% of the strength of a healthy immune system is made up of the diversity of living bacteria found in the intestines. Raw milk provides a perfect source for the "seeding and feeding" of these diverse populations of living bacteria. The average American diet is practically devoid of living bacteria (all killed foods and few bacterial sources). Our immune systems have suffered as a direct result. Consuming raw milk and dairy products is an important step towards regaining immune strength and overall health. On occasion a new raw milk consumer may have some diarrhea from over drinking raw milk for the first time. This is rare and should be considered very normal. After all, the intestine has never seen such an incredible introduction of new and diverse beneficial bacteria and does not have any idea what to do. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that pathogens may be transmitted in raw milk just as they may be transmitted in all other foods. OPDC has demonstrated that even when high levels of pathogens were introduced into raw milk, they die off and do not grow (BSK tests). In fact, pathogen killing safety systems are hard at work, keeping raw milk safe even if it has been contaminated. To date, there has never been a human pathogen ever detected in any OPDC product, in the plant, or from any test. OPDC products are highly pathogen resistant. Because OPDC can not predict the future and know what is yet to come, it is possible that someday a pathogen may be detected in an OPDC product. If you are a healthy OPDC consumer this should have no noticeable effect. Your immune system will deal with it and you will probably not even know that a pathogen was in your raw dairy product. This is evident when reading CDC reports of raw milk illness. The farm and dairy consumers never get ill; it is the first time raw consumers (with weak immune systems) that become ill. This is exactly why all people should drink lots of raw milk. A strong immune system is a gift of freedom and of health. It is your choice, and with raw milk (exercise, good hydration, a whole-food diet, and plenty of love) you need not become ill, ever. Choose life!
cp
Thanks for posting that. I understand your concerns better now. This is wrong:
"To date, not one of these pathogens have ever been detected by any test at OPDC or conducted by any state or federal agency. "
I believe that ecoli 0157H7 was found in manure of at least one cow.
This is also fraudulent:
"Not one person has complained to the state of CA that they have become sickened by an OPDC product. "
Unless you don’t count a lawsuit as a complaint….
This sentence should be changed from:
"More and more US consumers have severely weakened immune systems and can become ill by eating small amounts of FOREIGN bacteria that their bodies are not familiar with."
To:
"More and more US consumers have severely weakened immune systems and can become ill by eating small amounts of PATHOGENIIC bacteria that their bodies are not familiar with."
This is misleading because it omits the positive manure test:
"To date, there has never been a human pathogen ever detected in any OPDC product, in the plant, or from any test. "
The end of pragraph #16 is misleading because it does not address what happens to the unlucky immune compromised person who encounters a milk-borne pathogen early in their raw milk transition period.
I would say the whole thing really does give the wrong impression. If you are a consumer who is looking for a product that is 100% guaranteed to be safe, and you read this material, you will be mislead into thinking you have found your guarantee.
Mark, Why do you persist in this?