If you want to get a sense of the double-talk that passes for science around the raw-milk issue, take a look at the transcript from the California Senate hearing on raw milk held April 15 in Sacramento. Organic Pastures Dairy Co. has just published the complete 159-page transcript on its site.
Begin on p. 27, with the testimony of Michael Payne, who describes himself as a researcher in food safety at the University of California at Davis, as well as an expert in veterinary medicine and comparative pathology, and you’ll see what I mean. It was widely understood at the hearing that he was a stand-in for the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which refused repeated requests from Sen. Dean Flores, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Food-Borne Illness, to send a representative.
Payne began his testimony by stating: “It’s not just a turn-of-the-century problem, but serious and even deadly disease outbreaks caused by raw milk products continue to this day.” He then gave a garbled assessment of how E.coli0157:H7, listeria, and camphylobacter had been found in cows providing organic milk (not clear if he meant just organic pasteurized milk, organic pasteurized milk from pastured cows or raw milk).
At the end of his testimony, Sen. Flores asked, “Has anyone died in California from raw milk?”
“Unequivocally yes,” stated Payne.
When Sen. Flores asked him to explain, he counted from his printed submission and finally said, “Eleven documented cases of certified raw milk.” After Sen. Flores established that those were illnesses and supposedly came from the long-shuttered Altadena dairy, the senator asked again, “Has there been any certified deaths due to the two dairies that are now producing this in California?”
To which Payne answered, “Not any deaths…”
There followed more hemming and hawing, in which Payne tossed around statistics about illnesses and deaths in which it wasn’t clear whether he was talking about milk or cheese, or California or non-California illnesses. Finally, after more questioning, Payne stated that in all the statistics he has about California, going back who knows how far, “Well, as I look through it, let’s see—one death associated with raw milk consumption. It happened in 1980, or 1991, four illnesses and one death associated with raw milk consumption that were all treated by the same VA hospital in San Diego.”
After more questioning, he concluded, “Ultimately, checking the sanitation is what’s going to protect raw milk consumers. And a small part of that, but a part of that, will be total coliform counts…”
So after all that, what we learn is there was one death in California from raw milk contamination, maybe, in 1980 or 1991. And that coliform measurements are “a small part” of the sanitation picture. Whew. And it took ten pages of testimony to extract that garbled info. I see now why I didn’t try to report it in detail at the time—I just couldn’t be sure I understood what the guy was saying, since even in print it is nonsensical.
On the serious side, there was lots of very interesting testimony preceding Payne’s testimony from raw milk drinkers, especially in response to Sen. Flores’ perceptive question: What would happen if raw milk were banned?
***
Speaking of politicians, there’s an interesting statement just out from a Pennsylvania senator, Mike Folmer. He says this about last week’s trials of Pennsylvania raw milk producers Mark Nolt and Glenn Wise:
“Why the crackdown on the Commonwealth’s longstanding raw milk tradition? Answer: the administration has succumbed to an irrational fear of the health aspects of raw milk.
“The truth is this: properly collected from cows fed with organic grass, raw milk has no appreciable negative consequences for the consumer. In fact, raw milk from grass-fed cows contains natural antibiotic properties that help protect it from pathogenic bacteria. Raw milk is also more nutritious than pasteurized milk because pasteurization destroys heat-sensitive vitamins and minerals, including Vitamin B and thiamin, as well as positive enzymes. Pasteurization also destroys friendly, pathogen-eating bacteria. Pasteurized milk sickens people in far greater numbers than does the more heavily regulated raw product, although admittedly far more people drink pasteurized milk.
“Let me offer an important disclaimer: any food can be contaminated, including raw and pasteurized milk. What matters is how the milk is produced, handled and packaged.”
Well stated, Senator. Now let’s see if there’s any followup efforts against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
That is the same guy who has not visited either raw dairy in CA. I think he had said he visited many in Europe? China? and somewhere else? He stumbled over his responses pathetically.
I believe Senator Folmer is correct.
After reading through this journal entry and the testimony from California, a light bulb went off. Dr. Mike Payne’s information is honest in my review and he held-up well under the kind of pressure that the other speakers were not subjected to. This was obviously (IMHO) a biased hearing and science was not a priority. On the other hand, when I read the raw milk experts’ quotes they seemed garbled and disorganized with little real data (mostly testimonials).
In conclusion, I’ve run out of comments or a desire to pursue this further. We are from a different planet. I still support things here such as the bigger goals of changing food system production and distribution and supporting small farmers, animal welfare, etc.
Take care.
C2 (aka Darth)
Anyone know where Bob Hayles went? Vacation or vacated too?
On the "one death," he was reading from a list that Florez apparently didn’t need him to finish. It sounds like it was part of the packet he included. Perhaps you should ask him for it so that you can understand his testimony.
To Payne, I would imagine that coliform counts are a "small part" because he would add a number of other things to ensure raw milk safety. He talked about time/temperature control and other such things.
On his testimony about listeria, campy, and 0157:H7, I didn’t see it as garbled at all. I actually thought he was purposely avoiding being inflammatory. Given that pathogen mix, I assume he was talking about Organic Pastures since listeria was found in its outsourced cream, 0157:H7 in cows at the dairy in 2006, and campy in the cows that matched the stool pattern from a consumer sick with campy. You could email him and have him clarify for you. I expect his point is that grass is no guarantee of safety.
The lack in the testimony I am interested in is the question of the feasibility of pathogen testing. It was never picked up by Florez afterwards even though he appeared to be interested. Academic studies use tests that require days in the lab. Those would not be feasible for every batch of milk. The rapid tests are not approved for testing 0157:H7 in milk (and are apparently not used on every batch anyway). Someone really should study those rapid tests in milk if this ends up coming down to direct tests for pathogens.
Amanda
Currently, there are at least 30 assays each for testing for E. coli O157:H7 and for Salmonella. Such a large number of options can be confusing and overwhelming to the user, but, more importantly, has limited the effective evaluation of these methods. As a result, only few methods have been officially validated for use in food testing (1,11).
I note that MP appeared shortly after I posted the text of his testimony at the January hearing. (I Posted Michael Paynes testimony on Feb 25, http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/2/23/at-last-data-on-raw-milk-and-lactose-intolerance-raw-milk-le.html and MP appears on Feb 28, http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/2/27/why-is-the-debate-over-raw-milk-so-emotional-when-the-facts.html#comments, arguing essentially the same position.) I’m sorry he’s left the discussion; I still would like to engage in a courteous discussion with him about the differences between milk intended for pasteurization and that produced for direct consumption…
When you think of the long-term illnesses and the hardship to the farmers and the degradation to our environment that pasteurized milk, along with the rest of our degraded food system, causes; and on the other hand the healthy benefits that excellent raw milk and other small and diversified farming gives to us and our world, i cannot imagine how you, as a responsible and aware food bureaucrat, can simply bow out of the effort.
We have a world to feed, not a world to bring to wrack and ruin, and we’d better start right here.
"i cannot imagine how you, as a responsible and aware food bureaucrat, can simply bow out of the effort."
You are right, but please note that I simply went back to lurking–that is participation too (still learning). No point being frustrated–I think "we" had an interesting discussion and time will tell if it needs to be rekindled.
Best,
C2
When we first sold grade B milk about 30 years ago,the milk inspector was a retired dairy farmer who had been milking a small herd of cows.It was a pleasure to visit with him when he did his inspection.He had many helpfull bits of advice for us and we respected his advice.For small scale dairy things have really changed in 30 years.The inspectors are usually very reasonable still,but it is obvious that they are under pressure from above.
As the dairy industry became concentrated in the hands of fewer milk buyers many farmers had no choice about who to sell to.By the late 90’s the price fell to half what it had been in 1990.At the same time hauling,which the farmer has to pay,and all of our other costs rose rapidly because the economy in general was booming while dairy farmers were in a depression.
Can you understand why dairy farmers,especially small scale farmers,think that the market was manipulated by the large processors to force them out?
I have no problem with inspectors and laboratories testing milk for quality.It is especially valuable for people that are just getting started producing milk.BUT,if the inspectors and the laboratories are in the control of people who appear to work in the interest of those same corporations that tried to put us out of business not so long ago,can you blame us for seeing this as a "conspiracy"?
We left the system in order to survive and we aren’t interested in being part of it in any way.I think there is room in this "new system"(actually it is the traditional system) of milk production and distribution for people who understand traditional food safety methods.
At the root of this approach to food safety is the understanding of how balanced communities of microorganisms can insure safety when we take the care to control the factors that make up what we call the "terrain".By controlling PH,temperature,salinity,nutrients,etc. we can keep the proper balance that will exclude those bacteria that can make us ill.
I would welcome a retired raw milk cheesemaker as an advisor/inspector anytime.
Thank you for sharing the interesting history. Clearly as a society we have created many problems with the evolution of farming practices. One of the most ironic in my opinion is the obesity epidemic among the poor: lots of cheap food does not translate into better health. Something for developing countries to consider as they change too.
It sounds like you have a safety program for your raw dairy that is either working or you are lucky or both. Everyone who sells food needs some bit of luck. My interpretation of the testimony discussed in this journal entry is that things are not working very well for Organic Pastures. Also, looking over at Westin Price, I could not find good information on food safety for new farmers going into the raw milk business. Maybe it is there somewhere, but overshadowed by the marketing and rebuttals to CDC, FDA, etc. statistics on outbreaks. It also would be nice to see more information on these sites about how to work well with local regulators. You imply that some are okay to work with. Is what the group sees as harassment pervasive everywhere, or am I just reading about certain high profile examples on this website?
C2
There are two distinct approaches to or philosophies about food safety.On the one hand there is the philosophy that food should be cheap and we can just cook it or sterilize it somehow if it isn’t clean enough.Nothing is really important except that it is definitely dead.No microbes should be tolerated.
On the other hand ,the vast majority of microbes are harmless or even beneficial,so lets understand which ones are potentially harmful and devise strategies to keep them in check.
To someone who has been trained in conventional food safety the second option may look like no food safety program at all.But,the weston price organization is teaching the traditional approach to food safety.This approach has a long history of success.
The biggest problem I see is that most of the people who have experience with cows and milk have been conventional farmers and they still cling to a lot of ideas that they should abandon.They need to look at the way milk was produced and distributed before pasteurization ,refrigeration and cheap grain existed.
As far as getting along with regulators at the local level,you should understand that the regulations come from the top,the farm inspectors are only the ones delivering the message.Nothing much has changed since Earl Butz,the U.S. secretary of agriculture many years ago said "Get big or get out". Back then big meant 100 cows ,now it means several thousand.It is not possible to work with that idea at all.We can’t work with regulators who believe that factory farms are the only way to produce milk.
The reason for the obesity epidemic,and its not just poor people,is that the soil has become depleted of minerals and so people are not able to satisfy their craving for minerals so they eat far too much food.
http://www.highbrixgardens.com/index.html
"In this day and age most of our soils arent what they should be nor even what they used to be. In many soils we see a faltering microbial balance, poor carbon cycling, and deficiencies in plant-available calcium, phosphorous, and trace minerals. As a result of such poor soils our food quality is equally poor. Poor quality food cannot sustain a high degree of health even though the choice of food types may be excellent. Most people consider eating a carrot a healthy thing to do. If that carrot, however, is poor quality at say 3 brix it does not confer the expected health benefit that it would if it was 18 brix.
In summary modern agriculture is producing a tremendous amount of low-quality produce. Good quality produce in typical supermarkets is hard to find and excellent quality is a rare find indeed. As a result of this we find a large portion of our population struggling with chronic health problems."
In the last stunning paragraph of Steinbeck’s "Grapes of Wrath," he writes: "Then she hoisted her tired body up and drew the comfort about her. She moved slowly to the corner and stood looking down at the wasted face, into the wide, frightened eyes. Then slowly she lay down beside him. He shook his heady slowly from side to side. Rose of Sharon loosened one side of the blanket and bared her breast. "You got to," she said…"
Steinbeck documented the change in agriculture for good or bad. As a scientist, your "soil" theory sounds ridiculous. But, there are underlying truths about a broken system.
I didn’t mean only the poor are too fat, just pointing out the irony that they are not emaciated like the people in Steinbeck’s books. Of course, many of us in the middle and upper class are overweight too (those reading this blog are among the "not poor" if they have the ability to access the internet and buy raw milk at $10+/gallon).
Please work to provide more food safety information about raw milk risks including sanitation and an honest admission of past outbreaks.
Thanks.
C2
"As a scientist, your "soil" theory sounds ridiculous"
http://www.soilandhealth.org/06clipfile/0601.lemag/le%20magazine,%20march%202001%20-%20report%20vegetables%20without%20vitamins.htm
"Vegetables Without Vitamins"
"Imagine the surprise of going online and discovering that the vitamin and mineral content of vegetables has drastically dropped.
Thats what happened to nutritionist, Alex Jack, when he went to check out the latest US Department of Agriculture food tables. The stunning revelation came after Jack compared recently published nutrient values with an old USDA handbook he had lying around. Some of the differences in vitamin and mineral content were enormous-a 50% drop in the amount of calcium in broccoli, for example. Watercress down 88% in iron content; cauliflower down 40% in vitamin C content-all since 1975."
*******
further on in the same article
"The USDA is apparently unconcerned and not interested in the vitamin drain, despite its mandate to ensure high quality safe foods. In her letter to Organic Gardening, Ms. Johnson said that the nutritional content of produce is not as important as things like appearance and big yield. In other words, Ms. Johnson espouses the view of commercial growers that food is a product in the same way that running shoes are a product. Looks are more important than substance. That view of vegetables and fruits reduces your spinach salad to pretty roughage, and your chances of meeting RDAs to slim."
The USDA can be accessed at http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/www.usda.gov. The food tables are available online.
The folks who do the food testing are in the Agricultural Research Service which can be accessed at http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/www.ars.usda.gov.
C2,
you have done a good job representing the industry/government argument against unpasteurized milk.The problem is that people are smart enough to see when they are being deceived.They can see that your point of view is based on a serious lack of information and a willingness to be mislead.
"Because the raw milk problem in the context of the whole of food-borne illness and public health as a whole is the equivalent of a pinprick."
Unless your pinprick was a loved one.
C2
Unless your pinprick was a loved one."
The same could be said about vaccinations or medications.